'You are being programmed,' former Facebook executive warns

[greenwald]

Honestly, worrying about Facebook data logging is a rather pointless tempest in a teapot until you accept that the web, as a whole, is a front in an on going information war between countries and non-state actors. Coordinating an a weekly event to honor veterans is pointless, if you're channeling in-vetted information (i.e., birther theories) or dismissing the findings of intelligence agencies when they present you with evidence of a state ordered cyber attack. Honoring those veterans while you're making yourself defenseless to cyber attacks is a bit like having a memorial service on the field, while the battle is being fought and wondering why the enemy is winning the battle.

This is serious stuff and Visian's comment about a targeted message has to be viewed from the perspective of a "targeted attack".

So, yell and scream about Facebook all you want, but don't forget to support the folks in our intelligence and cyber defense communities that are trying to protect us from a lot of people and countries that aren't our friends.

Lot of energy in that post, but if you were making a point, I missed it.

Sorry.

 

[36654]

Hardly. I think any form of individual communication, such as Twitter, is the antithesis of the world he wrote about. A more apt current example of an Orwellian world is the use of “news” organizations that exist to convey approved information.

I guess that's why we had the profession of Journalist. But, sadly, the concept of news as information has been lost to news as reality entertainment and news as a weapon. But, when viewed in terms of cyber warfare, this unfiltered communication is a very proficient weapon.

 

[36654]

Lot of energy in that post, but if you were making a point, I missed it.

Sorry.

No doubt you would.

 

[akbeemer]

Honestly, worrying about Facebook data logging is a rather pointless tempest in a teapot until you accept that the web, as a whole, is a front in an on going information war between countries and non-state actors. Coordinating an a weekly event to honor veterans is pointless, if you're channeling in-vetted information (i.e., birther theories) or dismissing the findings of intelligence agencies when they present you with evidence of a state ordered cyber attack. Honoring those veterans while you're making yourself defenseless to cyber attacks is a bit like having a memorial service on the field, while the battle is being fought and wondering why the enemy is winning the battle.

This is serious stuff and Visian's comment about a targeted message has to be viewed from the perspective of a "targeted attack".

So, yell and scream about Facebook all you want, but don't forget to support the folks in our intelligence and cyber defense communities that are trying to protect us from a lot of people and countries that aren't our friends.

The problem occurs when the use and characterization of the collected information and resulting intelligence is controlled and manipulated by corporations such as Facebook or politicians and their appointees. The one positive aspect of Twitter that I can discern is that the message is unfiltered and the consumer must decide on its veracity and worth.

 

[52184]

The one positive aspect of Twitter that I can discern is that the message is unfiltered and the consumer must decide on its veracity and worth.

Its unfiltered nature, coupled with the lack of veracity and truth, is precisely what is wrong with Twitter, particularly with some of its most active and well-known users.

Best,
DG

 

[akbeemer]

Its unfiltered nature, coupled with the lack of veracity and truth, is precisely what is wrong with Twitter, particularly with some of its most active and well-known users.

Best,
DG

Who would you appoint as the arbitrator of truth?

 

[pglaves]

Facts are indeed facts, and crap is indeed crap. It isn't rocket surgery. It requires critical thinking, a possible lost art.

 

[52184]

Who would you appoint as the arbitrator of truth?

My general observation would be that anyone contending to be the arbitor of truth doesn't have much of a relationship with said truth. Truth doesn't need an arbitor, truth consists of vetted facts sequenced and presented using logic, reason, and science. And usually, truth is found in information presented in that manner from multiple independent sources. What IS required, though, for truth to take root is that it must fall upon recipients capable of evaluative thinking and willing to expend the effort to do so.

That's the real flaw in social media in all it's channels and formats--it's a no-cost open medium where no vetting is required before distribution, all too many people who receive the postings blithely accept them as fact without doing their own examination or search for verification, and a frighteningly large number of people depend upon a single social media source--like Facebook--for their intake of "news". That's been made painfully evident in many ways and many times over the last few years. It's akin to the folks who blindly follow their GPS as the single source of guidance on the road, or the guy trying to understand a maintenance procedure on his new BMW by looking at a single video clip he found on Facebook. Prudent? Perhaps the first question that should be asked when someone starts presenting "truth" is "What sources of news and information are you PAYING to receive--that's information helpful in evaluating the how/what/when/why/where of what's being presented. And lastly, the real problems with social media start showing up when it went beyond being used for SOCIAL purposes, for interpersonal comms between friends and family, and ventured into the commercial, political, and "news" arenas.
IMHO, of course.

Or, we could just run with this: https://youtu.be/vn_PSJsl0LQ It seems to be working well for a lot of people nowadays...



Best,

DG

 

[littlebriar]

"Think about how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of 'em are stupider than that." George Carlin

I use an extension for my Chrome browser called Facebook Purity. It allows me pretty much complete control on what to show and what to hide. I can filter out posts with words like, "trump, hillary, gun control" etc. I can hide those stupid posts that showed someone I didn't know liking or sharing something I don't care about. I can hide the ads, memories, trending, etc. It will even filter out pictures of food, cats, etc. I now only see the stuff that's important to me which is original posts from family and friends. Which was what Facebook was all about when it was created and what made it so popular.

 

[beemerphile]

What George Wills missed is Twitter's power to cut through media filters and communicate a message directly to the targeted recipient.

Which, combined with the inconveniences of vetting, is why a lie can be half-way around the world before the truth can get its shoes tied.

And we call this progress?

 

[Omega Man]

You're missing my point, but that's ok... I've made it a million times before and nothing changes.

This forum is social media. Facebook is social media.

A *lot* of people use both... for various reasons. What we (as in the MOA) fail to do is get the two working together to create new members for the MOA.

Instead we grouse about one or the other, based on our own personal preferences.

I guess on this Ian, I have to go back to one of my original thoughts-
FB is free.......how many would pay to be part of an experience (MOA) on FB if they had to pay?
The forum, and MOA as it exists, has a membership fee. I believe those willing to pay that fee are inherently more valuable to an organization than those only involved because it's free.
Of course my theory will be completely discredited if somehow the numbers show that advertising revenue (on FB) are so much higher that what is generated by paying members.
OM

 

[glenfiddich]

I use FB, but generally in topic-based groups. It lets me keep friends abreast of where we are and where we're headed when on the road, and many a time I've either received offers of a spare room and hot meal a couple thousand miles from home, or advice on great side trips. I've been able to meet face to face with people who have similar interests (bikes, sidecars, golden retrievers, veterans). Sure those things can be found in various fora, but especially on trips I find it more convenient to use FB

That said, there are many topics that get heated quickly and I find that many are far braver behind their keyboard than they would be face to face. When I run into that I suggest it would be a better topic discussed over beer. If that fails I just hide the conversation. Ditto with all those chains and endlessly repeated mindless memes. Spend a month blocking inflammatory sites and what remains is not that bad.

Pete

 

[greenwald]

Which, combined with the inconveniences of vetting, is why a lie can be half-way around the world before the truth can get its shoes tied.

And we call this progress?

It's not progress. It's digital pollution.

Sadly, bound to get worse in months and years to come, given the addiction numbers flaunted by FB, Twitter and the like.

No cure is on the horizon, since it's 'host' is human nature itself. It preys on peer pressures, vanity, prejudices, popularity, corporate greed, ambitions, what's 'trending' and other emotional buttons.

Will this intelligence vacuum burn itself out, re-set, evolve, go dormant or sadly endure?

Will we as a society even be able to tell the difference?

 

[Visian]

FB is free.......how many would pay to be part of an experience (MOA) on FB if they had to pay?

Ya know, and I am trying to be polite here.... I've explained this to you many times, but my friend, there is no way I can understand it for you.

Step one is to stop thinking in boxes and Step two is understand that people follow a process when making a purchase (and repurchase) decision.

People use more than one medium, so stop thinking that a user of one medium is mutually exclusive from users of another. And please understand that to purchase something, people go through a process of becoming aware of it and ultimately concurring on its value.

Strategically, a marketer maps this decision-making process to a media communications process. It looks something like this:

In our particular situation an advertisement on Facebook could point to a blog post or forum post on our web site. This experience gives people a taste of what our brand is about and possibly capture some information that can be used to remind the person of their visit. By continually engaging prospects and persuading them via various touch points (including, e.g. dealer presentations, local club meetings, weekend getaways, our national rally... in addition to other electronic means of promotion) we can ultimately convince them to buy... or in our case, join.

NEVER have I said that social media is where the MOA brand experience should exclusively occur. It's simply one step in a series of communications that builds awareness, understanding, belief and overt behavior.

Beyond this, the real sad fact is that the MOA doesn't employ this strategy, and the reason I think you're annoyed is that our leaders diss our Forum by ignoring it. Those things I cannot fix (or even explain to you why it happens or doesn't).

Ian

 

[Omega Man]

Not annoyed, just don’t see it working. If we had numbers (graphs) on the join/decline rates between FB and the MOA, chances are it would clarify things.
Perhaps it’s like the lease marketing that states “lease this vehicle for only $199.00 per month in a 36 month leases with $3,600.00 down” mentality that is the confuzzlement
OM