• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.

Kill3r7

Member
Oct 25, 2017
24,403
Ok but your experience is also not everyone's experience. You may have lost an opportunity simply due to merit but that doesn't mean there isn't a black person or woman or transgender person who was denied an opportunity because the person evaluating them was a bigot.

Furthermore that line of questioning highlighted the fact that there are so few minority and female partners at top100 firms that it really is a black eye for the profession. Furthermore these are global firms and their diversity figures are abysmal. Unfortunately the same thing applies to tech, finance and frankly virtually every sector/industry in the S&P 500.
 

RedMercury

Blue Venus
Member
Dec 24, 2017
17,650
Andrew Marantz goes into this in his new book, and when I read it I was ecstatic because I've been saying the same shit, is these young tech-bertarians thought they would make these platforms and they would grow and they could be hands-off (or AI would progress and help with content removal) and the cream would rise to the top. They were so ambitious and shortsighted they never thought of themselves or their platforms being able to be manipulated. And now, these companies are so huge and embedded that they can't physically afford to police themselves and still continue to exist. They just had a sense of optimism that "tech is the answer" and went forward with no responsibility on their part.
 

Mr. X

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,495
Imagine being reminded that you were sent these questions in advance before the hearing when you try to dodge with 'I don't know off hand'.

Tsk tsk
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,465
As I said, I'm not white and I was also born in a third world country and each opportunity that I failed at in France is because I was not good enough (certainly partly because I had relative setbacks like not going to a French high school but that's life) and not because the color of my skin.

Man, this is the type of shit that's mind-boggling. You say everything should be merit-based, but you yourself talk about personal experience of possibly being denied placement at a job/uni based on not going to a French high school.

For someone who's logical, you seem to not be.
 

Trup1aya

Literally a train safety expert
Member
Oct 25, 2017
21,330
The reason why the rules don't apply to cable networks such as CNN is because they aren't broadcast licensees under the law. If CNN had any local broadcasting networks they wouldn't be able to deny such ads on said networks. As a rule of thumb only broadcast licensees have free speech rights in broadcasting. Networks do not except as authorized by the "public interest" requirement. Also the way ads work on social media (targeted ads) makes them more akin to local broadcasting stations than networks.

What obviously goes unsaid here is that if you classify them as a network then they are free to run whatever ads they want as long as they don't violate FCC rules.

No way. The thing about broadcast is that you can measure how much of each message the area has been blanketed with.

On Facebook everyone Is seeing completely different ads.

Facebook isn't like a broadcast or cable network, really. But if we are going to make comparison, they are most like cable since they are free reject whatever they want.
 

des0lar

The Fallen
Oct 26, 2017
187
When it comes to unis, jobs, meritocracy is king.
What a load of bollocks honestly. You're in France and pretend racism doesn't exist. Give me a break please.

A research team led by Northwestern University sociologist Lincoln Quillian compared conditions in nine countries—Canada, the U.S., and seven European nations—and found that racism infested hiring processes in all of them.
The most discriminatory countries, per this research? France and Sweden.

These misrepresentations are the source of racial discrimination, particularly on the labor market, which result in capability deprivation for individuals of North African heritage. Recent French anti-discrimination policies are examined using a social economic capability approach based on a relational notion of society. It is argued that because these policies have been developed within the confines of the republican model, they fail to directly address limits to social-structural and individual capacities to act faced by individuals of Maghrebi origin.

Lawyers for the high school students argue that the French police continue to use racial profiling to arbitrarily stop non-white people, despite a landmark court ruling in 2016 when the French state was found guilty of carrying out unjustified identity checks on men from black and minority ethnic backgrounds.

I mean this was just the first page of Google results? Your posts are embarrassing.
 

Kill3r7

Member
Oct 25, 2017
24,403
No way. The thing about broadcast is that you can measure how much of each message the area has been blanketed with.

On Facebook everyone Is seeing completely different ads.

Facebook isn't like a broadcast or cable network, really. But if we are going to make comparison, they are most like cable since they are free reject whatever they want.

They are free to reject whatever they want because they are self regulated not because they are like networks.

On the topic of what they are most similar to, I would argue local broadcasters, as you and I living in different states do not see the same ads or volume of ads as compared to cable news networks which mostly show the same ads across all states.
 

dabig2

Member
Oct 29, 2017
5,116
Cambridge Analytica itself should've resulted in the dissolution of Facebook. They not only allowed this targeted psy-ops shit to happen, but basically encouraged it. I have a feeling people arguing in defense of Facebook are willfully ignoring the fuckery that has happened in the last 5 years particularly.

First we used focus groups and qualitative observation to unpack the perceptions of a given population and learn what people cared about — term limits, the deep state, draining the swamp, guns, and the concept of walls to keep out immigrants were all explored in 2014, years before the Trump campaign.
We then came up with hypotheses for how to sway opinions. CA tested these hypotheses with target segments in online panels or experiments to see whether they performed as the team expected, based on the data. We also pulled Facebook profiles, looking for patterns in order to build a neural-network algorithm that would help us make predictions.

Cambridge Analytica would target those who were more prone to impulsive anger or conspiratorial thinking than average citizens, introducing narratives via Facebook groups, ads, or articles that the firm knew from internal testing were likely to inflame the very narrow segments of people with these traits. CA wanted to provoke people, to get them to engage.
We began developing fake pages on Facebook and other platforms that looked like real forums, groups, and news sources, with vague names like Smith County Patriots or I Love My Country. When users joined CA's fake groups, it would post videos and articles that would further provoke and inflame them. Conversations would rage on the group page, with people commiserating about how terrible or unfair something was. CA broke down social barriers, cultivating relationships across groups. And all the while it was testing and refining messages, to achieve maximum engagement.

Lots of reporting on Cambridge Analytica gave the impression that everyone was targeted. In fact, not that many people were targeted at all. CA didn't need to create a big target universe, because most elections are zero-sum games: If you get one more vote than the other guy or girl, you win the election. Cambridge Analytica needed to infect only a narrow sliver of the population, and then it could watch the narrative spread.


Facebook gave up its chance to "self-regulate". They are one of the biggest threats to democracy in the world today.
 

Concelhaut

Banned
Jun 10, 2019
1,076
User Banned (Permanent): Racist Concern Trolling Over Multiple Posts; Numerous Prior Bans for Inflammatory Behavior Including a Severe Ban for Sexism
What a load of bollocks honestly. You're in France and pretend racism doesn't exist. Give me a break please.







I mean this was just the first page of Google results? Your posts are embarrassing.

I didn't say racism didn't exist. I said we don't have quota like in the US which makes for admitting/hiring people of color just because.


If Harvard had merit based admission, the class would have very few black people
 

EdibleKnife

Member
Oct 29, 2017
7,723
I didn't say racism didn't exist. I said we don't have quota like in the US which makes for admitting/hiring people of color just because.


If Harvard had merit based admission, the class would have very few black people
Generations of enslaving, raping, and wholesale slaughter of people of color and indigenous peoples is not "just because". And that kind of history is not exclusive to the US because the US isn't the only country who've participated in subjugating and divvying up the African continent and the environments and populations of people of color in general like livestock.
 

Sunster

The Fallen
Oct 5, 2018
10,012
If Harvard had merit based admission, the class would have very few black people
tumblr_inline_plbn020bYj1se2v0k_400.gif
 
Oct 27, 2017
12,288
There's this false idea that people are being hired just because they are black and not because of merit. It's false. The influence of systemic racism means that a hiring manager will decide to hire the white guy, even though the candidate of color is of equal or similar merit. Hiring people of different backgrounds, even if their may not be as qualified is not a bad thing either - as people of different backgrounds and experiences help break the homogenization that exists. New people, new perspectives, new experiences, etc.
 

EdibleKnife

Member
Oct 29, 2017
7,723
You say you're against artificiality but what's more artificial than a standardized test? The SAT isn't a gift from god sent down from on high to calculate merit and who singularly deserves education. It's made by people and taken by people who live in a world that isn't vacuum-sealed away from the consequences of centuries of oppression not just of black peoples but non-Christians, poor people, neuroatypical people, women and LGBTQ+ people.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,465

I don't think that's going to bolster your point. You should read the very last paragraph:

Debates over the fairness, value and accuracy of the SAT are sure to continue. The evidence for a stubborn race gap on this test does meanwhile provide a snapshot into the extraordinary magnitude of racial inequality in contemporary American society. Standardized tests are often seen as mechanisms for meritocracy, ensuring fairness in terms of access. But test scores reflect accumulated advantages and disadvantages in each day of life up the one on which the test is taken. Race gaps on the SAT hold up a mirror to racial inequities in society as a whole. Equalizing educational opportunities and human capital acquisition earlier is the only way to ensure fairer outcomes.

Also, this thread has gone completely off the rails.
 

Trup1aya

Literally a train safety expert
Member
Oct 25, 2017
21,330
They are free to reject whatever they want because they are self regulated not because they are like networks.

On the topic of what they are most similar to, I would argue local broadcasters, as you and I living in different states do not see the same ads or volume of ads as compared to cable news networks which mostly show the same ads across all states.

Right , Facebook is self-regulated, so why we arguing that if they decide to censor lies, they'll fall under fcc/fca? Facebook can do whatever they want here, and they are choosing the worst possible option.

Facebook isn't like broadcast. A candidate can buy ad time on each local network and be nearly 100% certain that he'll match his opponents exposure.

There's no such guarantee on cable, though most networks voluntarily try to be equitable

Facebook is the wild west. Literally anything goes and they don't even pretend to try to do anything to ensure users are getting balanced exposure.
 

lowmelody

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
2,101
Derailed by abject willful ignorance and let's face it, stupidity.

And I thought the people characterizing this as an 'ambush' were bad.
 

Kill3r7

Member
Oct 25, 2017
24,403
Right , Facebook is self-regulated, so why we arguing that if they decide to censor lies, they'll fall under fcc/fca? Facebook can do whatever they want here, and they are choosing the worst possible option.

Why did Facebook all of a sudden out of the blue implement a new political ad policy for the 2020 election that closely mimics broadcasting rules under FCA/FCC? There is your answer as to why we are arguing FCC/FCA.

They aren't afraid because either way they win. If the government wants to regulate them then FCC/FCA applies and they are complying with it. If they are exempt then they are free to do as they please aka choose the worst possible option. The end result is the same. Unless Congress plans to legislate and pass new laws that further regulate such speech.
 

Tawpgun

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
9,861
Fuck Facebook and Fuck Zuckerberg. Let's get that out of the way. That being said...

These congressional testimonies are so cringey to watch.

The person being questioned always gives the most neutral, careful answers.
Congress repeatedly interrupts and does not let them answer.

But Facebook is honestly in a very tough spot, at least in terms if the "fake news" problem. How do you realistically control and fact check that much information in a fair and neutral way?

Honestly it seems the only solution would be to limit what you can share but that defeats the whole purpose of social media.
 

Trup1aya

Literally a train safety expert
Member
Oct 25, 2017
21,330
I didn't say racism didn't exist. I said we don't have quota like in the US which makes for admitting/hiring people of color just because.


If Harvard had merit based admission, the class would have very few black people

So you think the black people that Harvard admits don't merit being accepted?

You've now crossed the ignorance-racism threshold .Congrats
 

Mesoian

▲ Legend ▲
Member
Oct 28, 2017
26,432
I didn't say racism didn't exist. I said we don't have quota like in the US which makes for admitting/hiring people of color just because.


If Harvard had merit based admission, the class would have very few black people


Haha, wow.

You probably thought this was a smart answer too.
 

Deleted member 7130

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
7,685
no but it's true. Americans are obsessed with race. Thank God I don't live in that society

Institutions of the economy and governance are built on old foundations of white supremacy. Excuse us little folk being aware of such realities and realizing that meritocracy is a lie. The most blatant proof of this is our president now and our historical trend of old white men.

Zuckerberg, Gates, Jobs, Musk, JP Morgan, Ford...

Obsessed with race? The writing is on the wall. To ignore it is to be ignorant of a real problem.
 

Deleted member 4614

Oct 25, 2017
6,345
I didn't say racism didn't exist. I said we don't have quota like in the US which makes for admitting/hiring people of color just because.


If Harvard had merit based admission, the class would have very few black people

It would also have very few white people. It would be a majority Asian school like CalTech or UC Berkeley.

So my question is why are you calling out black people in particular?
 

Sunster

The Fallen
Oct 5, 2018
10,012
Fuck Facebook and Fuck Zuckerberg. Let's get that out of the way. That being said...

These congressional testimonies are so cringey to watch.

The person being questioned always gives the most neutral, careful answers.
Congress repeatedly interrupts and does not let them answer.

But Facebook is honestly in a very tough spot, at least in terms if the "fake news" problem. How do you realistically control and fact check that much information in a fair and neutral way?

Honestly it seems the only solution would be to limit what you can share but that defeats the whole purpose of social media.
because they ask for yes or no answers like an attorney in court would then he proceeds to give a long winded version of "i think lying is bad"
 

mael

Avenger
Nov 3, 2017
16,764
Holy shit that congresswoman!
I wish she represented me.
Also

L
O
L

at that French guy dismissing racism in France.

I'm a pure product of the French educational system and even I can tell you this shit ain't doing what it should do (let alone the private sector).
We used to joke about how black people had super powers but white people's super powers were being able get jobs and housing.
This is so common knowledge and expected we joked about it in middle school!
We had no idea what we were going to do with our lives and were still learning the intricacies of the French language but we already knew that.
And my middle school was a good one, with people from higher middle class and up (if you know what you're doing carte scolaire is for chumps)
 
Oct 28, 2017
5,210
I was under the impression from other posters that broadcasters and cable networks fact-check ads before running them. Now it's been shown that local networks are not allowed to refuse political ads and cable networks have the choice and tend to not restrict ads. If that is the case, then having this expectation for Facebook to become the source of truth for political ads on their platform makes even less sense.

I assume Facebook doesn't allow ads that are in the extreme end of lying that are clearly harmful. But why expect them to analyze every figure and detail given by a political ad and determine if they're true? It's not just about presidential candidates. There are thousands and thousands of elected positions in just the US and hundreds of thousands of candidates. It's silly to expect Facebook to know the truth and fact check everything they do and say "well they shouldn't advertise if they can't do it!" especially when other channels of advertising do not have this expectation. Them being so large doesn't change that.
 

Kill3r7

Member
Oct 25, 2017
24,403
She was great. But the questions were probably without expectations to get an answer.

The questions also highlighted the underlying issue that there is little to no diversity in biglaw, finance/asset management or tech. The attempts by FB and the like at improving diversity do not amount to more than appeasing the peanut gallery.
 

lowmelody

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
2,101
Agreed. I don't think she came away looking great from that exchange.

You guys are ignorantly running interference for Mark Zuckerberg getting called out by a black woman out for using black people as a shield for criticism and placation about concerns that his company is directly harming black people and is on well on his way to knowingly harming more black people.

It's beggars belief that we actually have tone policing going on here regarding this. In persuit of letting Zukerfuckinberg wiggle and 'I don't know congresswoman' his way out of direct questions that he was prepped and prepared on no less.