Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

Political bias by social media, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, etc.

Old 04-07-18, 10:21 PM
  #1  
Political Exile
Thread Starter
 
grundle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,298
Political bias by social media, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, etc.

A mod said that if we wish to continue with this topic, it should be a separate thread, and not in the media bias thread.

Diamond And Silk are claiming that Facebook has declared them to be "unsafe to the community."

This is their Facebook page:

https://www.facebook.com/DiamondandSilk

This is their claim that Facebook has declared them to be "unsafe to the community."

Spoiler:


Diamond And Silk

April 6, 2018

Diamond And Silk have been corresponding since September 7, 2017, with Facebook (owned by Mark Zuckerberg), about their bias censorship and discrimination against D&S brand page. Finally after several emails, chats, phone calls, appeals, beating around the bush, lies, and giving us the run around, Facebook gave us another bogus reason why Millions of people who have liked and/or followed our page no longer receives notification and why our page, post and video reach was reduced by a very large percentage.

Here is the reply from Facebook. Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 3:40 PM:

"The Policy team has came to the conclusion that your content and your brand has been determined unsafe to the community." Yep, this was FB conclusion after 6 Months, 29 days, 5 hrs, 40 minutes and 43 seconds. Oh and guess what else Facebook said: "This decision is final and it is not appeal-able in any way." (Note: This is the exact wording that FB emailed to us.)

So our questions to Facebook (Mark Zuckerberg) are:

1. What is unsafe about two Blk-women supporting the President Donald J. Trump?

2. Our FB page has been created since December 2014, when exactly did the content and the brand become unsafe to the community?

3. When you say "community" are you referring to the Millions who liked and followed our page?

4. What content on our page was in violation?

5. If our content and brand was so unsafe to the community, why is the option for us to boost our content and spend money with FB to enhance our brand page still available? Maybe FB should give us a refund since FB censored our reach.

6. Lastly, didn't FB violate their own policy when FB stopped sending notifications to the Millions of people who liked and followed our brand page?

This is deliberate bias censorship and discrimination. These tactics are unacceptable and we want answers!

~Diamond and Silk


Facebook will never answer their request to point out the specific content of theirs that is "unsafe to the community," because such content does not exist.

And for the last time - yes, I know that these platforms are privately owned, and they have the right to censor whoever they want. But that's not the issue. The issue is bias.
grundle is offline  
Old 04-07-18, 10:55 PM
  #2  
DVD Talk Reviewer
 
Kurt D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,811
Re: Political bias by social media, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, etc.

I disagree with basically all of their propaganda, but the uncomfortable 10 minutes I spent on their page didn't reveal anything more unsafe than what I'd expect from any other pro-Trump conservative website.

ETA: I did just read a comment on one of their posts that said "my glock is waiting for your demands" in reference to the demands of the caravan of immigrants at the border. I guess maybe a forum where people can threaten other's lives with impunity could be considered dangerous, in that it may foment violence.

Last edited by Kurt D; 04-07-18 at 11:00 PM.
Kurt D is offline  
Old 04-08-18, 04:58 PM
  #3  
Political Exile
Thread Starter
 
grundle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,298
Re: Political bias by social media, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, etc.

Originally Posted by Kurtie Dee View Post
I disagree with basically all of their propaganda, but the uncomfortable 10 minutes I spent on their page didn't reveal anything more unsafe than what I'd expect from any other pro-Trump conservative website.

ETA: I did just read a comment on one of their posts that said "my glock is waiting for your demands" in reference to the demands of the caravan of immigrants at the border. I guess maybe a forum where people can threaten other's lives with impunity could be considered dangerous, in that it may foment violence.

Thanks for taking the time to read their stuff and to offer your opinion.

The comment that you quoted does indeed sound like it is dangerous. It is certainly inappropriate. But it wasn't Diamond and Silk who put it there. Diamond and Silk themselves seem perfectly safe and non-threatenening.
grundle is offline  
Old 04-08-18, 05:30 PM
  #4  
DVD Talk Reviewer
 
gryffinmaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ancient City
Posts: 6,538
Re: Political bias by social media, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, etc.

The comments sections on their FB page can be pretty unnerving, even delving into racial slurs toward the Obamas. If sparking and allowing those attitudes in comments sections factors into Facebook’s judgment of something “unsafe” for the community, I wouldn’t be surprised at their decision.
gryffinmaster is offline  
Old 04-08-18, 05:34 PM
  #5  
DVD Talk Reviewer
 
Kurt D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,811
Re: Political bias by social media, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, etc.

Originally Posted by grundle View Post
Thanks for taking the time to read their stuff and to offer your opinion.

The comment that you quoted does indeed sound like it is dangerous. It is certainly inappropriate. But it wasn't Diamond and Silk who put it there. Diamond and Silk themselves seem perfectly safe and non-threatenening.
If the comments were the cause of concern, perhaps it's because the page hosts didn't remove them or state that they don't advocate assault with a deadly weapon as a way to deal with immigration issues.
Kurt D is offline  
Old 04-09-18, 06:49 AM
  #6  
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 21,582
Re: Political bias by social media, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, etc.

Originally Posted by Kurtie Dee View Post
I disagree with basically all of their propaganda, but the uncomfortable 10 minutes I spent on their page didn't reveal anything more unsafe than what I'd expect from any other pro-Trump conservative website.

ETA: I did just read a comment on one of their posts that said "my glock is waiting for your demands" in reference to the demands of the caravan of immigrants at the border. I guess maybe a forum where people can threaten other's lives with impunity could be considered dangerous, in that it may foment violence.
Seems like a forum member here recently wished that a mob of immigrants would tear Dsouza to shreds.

Is DVDTalk guilty of fomenting violence?
creekdipper is offline  
Old 04-10-18, 07:17 PM
  #7  
Political Exile
Thread Starter
 
grundle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,298
Re: Political bias by social media, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, etc.

Originally Posted by gryffinmaster View Post
The comments sections on their FB page can be pretty unnerving, even delving into racial slurs toward the Obamas. If sparking and allowing those attitudes in comments sections factors into Facebook’s judgment of something “unsafe” for the community, I wouldn’t be surprised at their decision.
Originally Posted by Kurtie Dee View Post
If the comments were the cause of concern, perhaps it's because the page hosts didn't remove them or state that they don't advocate assault with a deadly weapon as a way to deal with immigration issues.

That's an excellent point that both of you raised. If Facebook's problem was with those comments, then Facebook should have said so. Facebook should tell Diamond and Silk what the problem is, and give them a chance to correct it (such as by deleting those comments).
grundle is offline  
Old 04-10-18, 08:34 PM
  #8  
DVD Talk Legend
 
mspmms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Indianapolis, Indiana. No preferred pronouns
Posts: 13,486
Re: Political bias by social media, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, etc.

<iframe width="853" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/F1au3RS5wrU" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>
mspmms is offline  
Old 04-11-18, 03:12 PM
  #9  
Political Exile
Thread Starter
 
grundle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,298
Re: Political bias by social media, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, etc.

I know a lot of people here don't trust Breitbart, but this particular article includes links to the linkedin accounts of high ranking Facegook officials in order to verify its claims.

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/0...ook-employees/

Facebook Has Dozens of Ex-Obama and Ex-Hillary Staffers in Senior Positions

April 10, 2018

In total, we found 45 employees who had previously worked or volunteered with the Hilary campaigns, the Obama campaigns, or the Obama White House and are now employed by Facebook, Facebook-owned companies, or the Chan-Zuckerberg Initiative. This does not include Facebook employees who do not have Linkedin accounts or neglected to mention past experience on their profiles.

Our search for former Romney staffers or campaign volunteers who currently work at Facebook returned just seven profiles. A search for McCain staffers returned one profile, who also appeared on the Romney list. A search for staffers from the George W. Bush administration or presidential campaigns returned three profiles. A search for former Trump staffers returned zero profiles —unless you count the Facebook industry insights lead who interned at Ivanka Trump’s company in 2012.

And again, I readily acknowledge that Facebook has every right to have these prominent Democrats in high ranking positions, and that Facebook is not breaking any laws. But that's not my point in posting the above information. My point is that Facebook is biased, and that this is proof. It's not illegal. But it is a sign of bias.
grundle is offline  
Old 04-11-18, 03:25 PM
  #10  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Rosemount, MN
Posts: 31,467
Re: Political bias by social media, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, etc.

Originally Posted by grundle View Post
And again, I readily acknowledge that Facebook has every right to have these prominent Democrats in high ranking positions, and that Facebook is not breaking any laws. But that's not my point in posting the above information. My point is that Facebook is biased, and that this is proof. It's not illegal. But it is a sign of bias.
How does having an ex-Obama staffer prove bias? Explain.

Last edited by Draven; 04-11-18 at 03:40 PM.
Draven is offline  
Old 04-11-18, 03:27 PM
  #11  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 3,357
Re: Political bias by social media, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, etc.

It actually is not proof.

You would need to do a much more through investigation to discover hiring bias.
WCChiCubsFan is offline  
Old 04-11-18, 03:34 PM
  #12  
Political Exile
Thread Starter
 
grundle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,298
Re: Political bias by social media, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, etc.

In 2012, one million Facebook users gave their permission for Facebook to give their info to the Obama campaign.

However, Facebook also gave the Obama campaign the info on the friends of these one million people, and did so without their friends' permission. The Obama campaign then used this info on these friends to try to get votes.

The mainstream media praised Obama for what he did in 2012, but the very same mainstream media criticized Trump for what he did in 2016.

Spoiler:

https://www.investors.com/politics/e...on-obama-2012/

Funny, When Obama Harvested Facebook Data On Millions Of Users To Win In 2012, Everyone Cheered

March 19, 2018

Privacy: Facebook faces what some are calling an "existential crisis" over revelations that its user data fell into the hands of the Trump campaign. Whether or not the attacks on the social media giant are justified, the fact is that the Obama campaign used Facebook data in the same way in 2012. But the reaction from the pundits and press back then was, shall we say, somewhat different.

According to various news accounts, a professor at Cambridge University built a Facebook app around 2014 that involved a personality quiz. About 270,000 users of the app agreed to share some of their Facebook information, as well as data from people on their friends list. As a result, tens of millions ended up part of this data-mining operation.

Consulting firm Cambridge Analytica, which paid for the research, later worked with the Trump campaign to help them target advertising campaigns on Facebook, using the data they'd gathered on users.

But while the Trump campaign used Cambridge Analytica during the primaries, it didn't use the information during the general election campaign, relying instead on voter data provided by the Republican National Committee, according to CBS News. It reports that "the Trump campaign had tested the RNC data, and it proved to be vastly more accurate than Cambridge Analytica's."

Since this involves the Trump campaign, the news accounts have been suffused with dark conspiratorial tones. The Times article talks about how Trump consultants "exploited" Facebook data, and quotes a source calling it a "scam." It has been widely described as a massive data breach.

But Facebook had been promoting itself to political parties looking for a new way to reach voters.

Nor was this the first time Facebook users had their data unwittingly shared with a political campaign.

In 2012, the Obama campaign encouraged supporters to download an Obama 2012 Facebook app that, when activated, let the campaign collect Facebook data both on users and their friends.

According to a July 2012 MIT Technology Review article, when you installed the app, "it said it would grab information about my friends: their birth dates, locations, and 'likes.' "

The campaign boasted that more than a million people downloaded the app, which, given an average friend-list size of 190, means that as many as 190 million had at least some of their Facebook data vacuumed up by the Obama campaign — without their knowledge or consent.


If anything, Facebook made it easy for Obama to do so. A former campaign director, Carol Davidsen, tweeted that "Facebook was surprised we were able to suck out the whole social graph, but they didn't stop us once they realized that was what we were doing."

This Facebook treasure trove gave Obama an unprecedented ability to reach out to nonsupporters. More important, the campaign could deliver carefully targeted campaign messages disguised as messages from friends to millions of Facebook users.

The campaign readily admitted that this subtle deception was key to their Facebook strategy.


"People don't trust campaigns. They don't even trust media organizations," Teddy Goff, the Obama campaign's digital director, said at the time. "Who do they trust? Their friends."

According to a Time magazine account just after Obama won re-election, "the team blitzed the supporters who had signed up for the app with requests to share specific online content with specific friends simply by clicking a button."

The effort was called a "game-changer" in the 2012 election, and the Obama campaign boasted that it was "the most groundbreaking piece of technology developed for the campaign."

The only difference, as far as we can discern, between the two campaigns' use of Facebook, is that in the case of Obama the users themselves agreed to share their data with the Obama campaign, as well as that of their friends.

The users that downloaded the Cambridge app, meanwhile, were only told that the information would be used for academic purposes. Nor was the data to be used for anything other than academic purposes.

It's an important distinction, to be sure, and Facebook is right to be attacked for its inability to control how its user data were being gathered and shopped around. (Facebook tightened its privacy rules on data sharing apps in 2015.)

But keep in mind that it wasn't the Trump campaign that solicited the collection of the data. And, as we said, it didn't use the data in the general election campaign.

Obama, in contrast, was collecting live data on active users right up until Election Day, and at a scale that dwarfed anything the Trump campaign could access.

More important, the vast majority of people involved in these data-mining operations had no idea they were participating. And in the case of Obama, they had no way of knowing that the Obama campaign material cluttering their feed wasn't really just political urgings from their friends.

There is one other big difference: how these revelations were received by pundits and the press. In 2012, Obama was wildly celebrated in news stories for his mastery of Big Data, and his genius at mining it to get out the vote.

We were told then about how the campaign "won the race for voter data," and how it "connected with young voters." His data analytics gurus were treated as heroes.

This is not to say that Facebook doesn't deserve criticism. Clearly, its data-protection policies have been slipshod.

But the recent fury exposes a massive double standard on the part of those now raising hell.

When Obama was exploiting Facebook users to help win re-election, it was an act of political genius. When Trump attempted something similar, with unclear results, it's a travesty of democracy and further evidence that somehow he stole the election.
grundle is offline  
Old 04-11-18, 03:43 PM
  #13  
Political Exile
Thread Starter
 
grundle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,298
Re: Political bias by social media, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, etc.

Originally Posted by mspmms View Post
<iframe width="853" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/F1au3RS5wrU" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I think it's very totalitarian for the government to be interrogating Zuckerberg with those questions. No matter how biased I think Facebook is, I still support Facebook's right to have and act on such biases.
grundle is offline  
Old 04-11-18, 03:46 PM
  #14  
Political Exile
Thread Starter
 
grundle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,298
Re: Political bias by social media, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, etc.

Originally Posted by Draven View Post
How does having an ex-Obama staffer prove bias? Explain.

It's not just one.

The ratio of Democrats to Republicans suggests, but does not prove, bias.

.

Originally Posted by WCChiCubsFan View Post
It actually is not proof.

You would need to do a much more through investigation to discover hiring bias.

I agree with you that it's not proof of bias. But it certainly does suggest the existence of bias.
grundle is offline  
Old 04-11-18, 04:41 PM
  #15  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Rosemount, MN
Posts: 31,467
Re: Political bias by social media, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, etc.

Originally Posted by grundle View Post
It's not just one.

The ratio of Democrats to Republicans suggests, but does not prove, bias.
That's not what you said.

My point is that Facebook is biased, and that this is proof.
Having people on-staff who worked for Democrats is NOT "proof" of bias.
Draven is offline  
Old 04-11-18, 05:42 PM
  #16  
Political Exile
Thread Starter
 
grundle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,298
Re: Political bias by social media, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, etc.

Originally Posted by Draven View Post
That's not what you said.



Having people on-staff who worked for Democrats is NOT "proof" of bias.

Good for you for pointing out that I did indeed say that, which contradicts my later claim that I did not say it.

It certainly seems odd that they have such a huge ratio of Democrats to Republicans.
grundle is offline  
Old 04-11-18, 05:45 PM
  #17  
Political Exile
Thread Starter
 
grundle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,298
Re: Political bias by social media, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, etc.

Facebook still refuses to tell Diamond and Silk what it is that makes their channel "unsafe."

These two fine ladies are very decent and respectable. There is nothing "unsafe" about them.

grundle is offline  
Old 04-11-18, 05:48 PM
  #18  
Political Exile
Thread Starter
 
grundle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,298
Re: Political bias by social media, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, etc.

This is from the Washington Post YouTube channel:

grundle is offline  
Old 04-11-18, 06:29 PM
  #19  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Rosemount, MN
Posts: 31,467
Re: Political bias by social media, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, etc.

Originally Posted by grundle View Post
Good for you for pointing out that I did indeed say that, which contradicts my later claim that I did not say it.

It certainly seems odd that they have such a huge ratio of Democrats to Republicans.
You think it’s odd that creative tech types lean Democrat?

Which party is trying to end net neutrality?

Last edited by Draven; 04-11-18 at 08:28 PM.
Draven is offline  
Old 04-11-18, 06:42 PM
  #20  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
joeblow69's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Palm Springs
Posts: 8,883
Re: Political bias by social media, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, etc.

I'm sure this is an unpopular opinion, but I would be totally fine with facebook getting rid of these garbage voices (on all sides). They always seem to attract the worst commenters, who say the most disgusting things. Which could actually what got them in trouble ... if they aren't policing the comments on their page, and enough people report it, I could see how it gets them shut down.

And before you ask "Well who gets to decide which voices are garbage?" ... ME. I'd do it. Facebook, hit me up, I'm looking for work!
joeblow69 is offline  
Old 04-11-18, 09:24 PM
  #21  
Political Exile
Thread Starter
 
grundle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,298
Re: Political bias by social media, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, etc.

The reason Facebook said Diamond and Silk were “unsafe” is because Facebook is run by social justice warriors who demanded “safe spaces” when they were in college.

According to this article from the Washington Post, Facebook recently sent the following message to Diamond and Silk: (the bolding is mine)

“The Policy team has came to the conclusion that your content and your brand has been determined unsafe to the community… This decision is final and it is not appeal-able in any way.”

The same Washington Post article went on to say:

“Facebook has not explained what, if anything, the sisters have done to violate its terms of service or be considered ‘unsafe’… their videos are not violent or especially incendiary.”

When regular people use the word “unsafe,” they are referring to things that are physically dangerous, such as falling off a 500 foot cliff and landing on the jagged rocks below, or riding a motorcycle at 200 mph without a helmet, or getting one’s arms chopped off by a maniac with a machete.

But Facebook is not run by regular people.

Facebook is run by social justice warriors who – when they were in college just a few years ago – demanded “safe spaces.” But these “safe spaces” that they demanded had nothing whatsoever to do with physical safety. Instead, they wanted to be “protected” from ideas that did not conform to their own social justice warrior beliefs.

And that is why Facebook labeled Diamond and Silk as being “unsafe.”
grundle is offline  
Old 04-11-18, 09:39 PM
  #22  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
joeblow69's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Palm Springs
Posts: 8,883
Re: Political bias by social media, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, etc.

Originally Posted by grundle View Post
And that is why Facebook labeled Diamond and Silk as being “unsafe.”
No, that's what The Washing Post article guesses the reason they are deemed unsafe. The article you quotes specifically says:

“Facebook has not explained what, if anything, the sisters have done to violate its terms of service or be considered ‘unsafe’…
joeblow69 is offline  
Old 04-11-18, 10:23 PM
  #23  
DVD Talk Reviewer
 
gryffinmaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ancient City
Posts: 6,538
Re: Political bias by social media, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, etc.

If Facebook wanted to be thought police, they could have a field day with the garbage one can find throughout the site’s pages and groups. I think they get interested when communities start flippantly using racial slurs and violent rhetoric that goes unchecked, and a quick glance at the comments sections reveals that isn’t uncommon on D&S’s page.
gryffinmaster is offline  
Old 04-12-18, 09:31 AM
  #24  
Dan
DVD Talk Legend
 
Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Posts: 20,181
Re: Political bias by social media, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, etc.

Originally Posted by grundle View Post
The reason Facebook said Diamond and Silk were “unsafe” is because Facebook is run by social justice warriors who demanded “safe spaces” when they were in college.
Dude. You're a grown-ass adult man. Shit like this makes you sound like a teenage edgelord on 4chan. This isn't a personal attack; it's an observation. That's 100% how angry young boys talk online to sound bad-ass. You can do better.

Anyway, maybe FB found them unsafe because they were propagating Pizzagate bullshit; the same bullshit that convinced a man to go to Comet Pizza and open fire. Not to mention, being paid by the Trump campaign to continue spreading such fake news:

Dan is offline  
Old 04-12-18, 09:37 AM
  #25  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Conducting miss-aisle drills and listening to their rock n roll
Posts: 17,665
Re: Political bias by social media, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, etc.

“The Policy team has came to the conclusion that your content and your brand has been determined unsafe to the community… This decision is final and it is not appeal-able in any way.”
All I know is that those grammar mistakes in a piece of public correspondence from a major publicly traded company used to be unacceptable.
Mabuse is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.