I liken using Facebook to being a scab or crossing a picket line.there is a BOYCOTT.

[Dream Girl]

Facebook is cool with allowing false and misleading disinformation to be spread uncontrolled. Facebook supports Trump. Doing the right thing couldn’t be clearer.I have seen people justify their use because it’s how they keep in touch with relatives. Others say they know what to look for. This just seemed so weak and a bit clueless. What happened to having principles?

[Squinch]

1. I would recommend everyone still on Facebook take a look at The Social Dilemma.

What Facebook is doing to you ***whether you think they are influencing you or not*** is insane.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

2. That's the problem with people: always thinking for themselves. NT

[cwydro]

11. Boom.

[Thekaspervote]

3. To me... using fb is no different than watching or supporting fux snooz. MZ is a selfish traitor

[edhopper]

7. Dude

enough with this link, you are going to get banned.

[hlthe2b]

10. why? What is wrong with disseminating a legit voting info site--no matter how often?

[edhopper]

13. He has posted it over 30 times

in different threads.

He should just make a thread with it and stop posting it in every thread he goes to.

[hlthe2b]

14. It isn't a commercial site. He breaks no rules doing so.

You can use ignore (trash by keyword or ignore member name) to stop seeing them.

[Rhiannon12866]

31. He's Spamming the board, posting this over and over on random threads

He posted it 21 times last night and he's at it again today. I was just called for a jury.

[hlthe2b]

33. So?. Why the hell ar DU/aDUers upset about posting VALID noncommercial site information on voting?

What has this site become that THAT is an issue? What the hell is wrong that DUers don't realize how much valid information dissemination is needed, how much our election is at RISK? Why are you perturbed by efforts to disseminate valid information? Why?

I for one am scared to death about the attempts to manipulate the vote/voters with disinformation, yet I find DUers upset about repeated posting of legitimate info?

[niyad]

58. You do know that the site is a creation of Colbert's? He announced it the other night in his

monologue, a serious effort to counteract all the bs of the traitor in chief.

[Rhiannon12866]

60. Yes, I posted it along with his monologue which I've been doing since 2017

His is a public service. Spamming the board over 30 times on random threads with blind links is not. He has been warned by MIRT.

[obamanut2012]

15. he is spamming

[hlthe2b]

18. the rule is for commercial spamming. Not a public service legit voting information site

Why is this a problem for you? We should be doing all possible to get people the information to register, request ballots, vote, and vote EARLY?

I'm aghast that any DUer would have a problem with this. Those who don't need/already know the information can simply trash the keyword, ignore the poster, or simply move on. Easy peasy.

[Rhiannon12866]

32. Yes. He's posted this over 30 times on random threads with no context

And he's been warned. This is the definition of "Spamming the board."

[hlthe2b]

35. The rule was for commercial spamming NOT for legitimate information for voting in this all crucial

election--something I THOUGHT DUers were united in doing.

I say to those expressing outrage over some repetitive posting that does not do anything more than disseminate valid information for those looking to ensure they have a voting plan-- the problem is NOT with that poster. Perhaps look within.

[Rhiannon12866]

36. This is the definition of Spamming the board

Posting the same blind link over 30 times on random threads with no context. He has been warned several times by MIRT.

[hlthe2b]

38. YOU should convey your opinion to EarlG. We have never applied this rule to informative, valid

information of a non-commercial form designed to AID OUR CAUSE. That you don't differentiate is disturbing to me. I haven't been on MIRT for some time, but in my "era" we would have advanced that question to Skinner--not taken it upon ourselves to interpret a rule for all of DU in direct contrast to how it has been interpreted over the past two decades.

[Rhiannon12866]

40. This is not my opinion, it is the rule which MIRT is upholding. n/t

[hlthe2b]

41. No it is not and apparently...

the jury (s) have not seen it your way either. Perhaps we should put the focus back on REAL RW disinformation efforts where it belongs

[hlthe2b]

46. Which, given you just did the same suggests a bit of problem with your interpretation.

So, when did we focus on damaging our own GOTV efforts over containing RW disinformation campaigns?

[Kali]

61. check posting history

not participating, just spamming board randomly

it wouldn't be so bad as an OP that got self kicked for every spam reply instead, but this is getting disruptive.

[hlthe2b]

68. GOTV efforts are disruptive? Perhaps those complaining could take the 3 seconds required to ignore

the poster or trash the keyword instead of complaining about a valid site being repeatedly posted that is legitimately involved in aiding our voting efforts.


Sorry, Kali. You and I usually agree, but on this, I don't want another November like November 2016 and if that means a few people complain about their viewing experience (which is fully under THEIR control), then so be it. Seems to me that when HELPFUL info is repeatedly posted, that it should be EarlG's decision as to when "enough is enough."

[Kali]

69. it was an odd situation for MIRT and EarlG has been contacted

even good, informative ads get annoying. what can I say?

[hlthe2b]

70. As he should. THIS is not within the current guidelines for "spam." It should be HIS determination.

Not, a single MIRT member's interpretation that goes outside current bounds. Given that apparently at least two juries have declined to conclude it as spam and hide the posts, the interpretation of it as "disruptive" is not a consensus view.

I stated to Rhiannon upstream, that in the past, this kind of thing had been forwarded (by MIRT) to admins. You are the first to suggest that has actually been done.

[Kali]

73. well he can reinstate him if he feels differently

MIRT had already reached consensus, it wasn't Rhiannon's sole interpretation.

[hlthe2b]

74. Cyclical pattern with MIRT

that I've observed when I served in the past. I hope he does weigh-in, though it would be hard, given the now-banned poster (that two juries voted in defense of) would have to contact him directly and for WHAT? Posting GOTV valid information. Shameful overreach.

[Kali]

75. what about blog floggers who post the same shit

even if it is "good" info? we tell them to put it in sig line and participate or they get booted.

[hlthe2b]

76. This poster stopped at 32 posts when he was called on it. I saw no further posts since

the first poster in this thread threatened him--hours ago. Yet, though he'd apparently gotten the message, two juries (at least) refused to hide his posts, and again, HOURS later, MIRT acted, rather than defer to admins. I dare say that a very small percentage of today's long term posters would have made it past their first 100 with that level of intolerance. Perhaps you and I as well.

I suppose next I will hear that it was his fault for not self-deleting--as though we ALL knew what self-deleting was for, how to do it, why to do it, and WHEN, the first week we logged on as registered DUers. Honestly, I don't know why the focus is NOT on intentional RW disruptors--not those who make mistakes while trying to GOTV.

[Kali]

77. nah, 40 posts total only the first 2 were "real" all the rest were spam

I warned him twice as replies on day one and yesterday and I think a couple of others did as well, I also sent a PM - he posted his last spam 2 minutes after I PMd him.

there were at least 3 alerts on him that I know of, possibly more. he was disrupting.

[hlthe2b]

78. Then THREE juries refused to condemn him. Perhaps that SHOULD have told MIRT something

and that deferral to Earl G might be in order. Did he respond to your PMs? Perhaps he did, but not all newbies even know what DU mail is and how to access it.

AND, given it was VALID GOTV information from a very valid source, exactly what was he hurting? Maybe ensuring those who don't read every single post on DU actually see it? Heavens, how horrendous. Especially when every single one of us has the tools at our disposal to hide a poster or trash based on subject line content.

Meanwhile, we have real disinformation that hurts us. Does anyone really think THAT should not be the focus?

[Kali]

81. unfortunately the juries couldn't see the 30 repeat posts of the one they were looking at

it was definitely an unusual situation. I think it has been explained repeatedly that it was disruptive, I realize you disagree but spamming is spamming - it is the behavior that is disruptive, not the link. EarlG has not responded, perhaps you should send a PM as well.

[hlthe2b]

82. These weren't 30 threads. They were reply posts within threads. YOU believe it was disruptive.

Three juries or more disagreed. But, that should have been Earl G's call, given we have not had a habit of banning posters who repeatedly post valid, useful, helpful GOTV information. NEVER. Not commercial spamming, but useful information that does no harm, but might, just might help a reader find the information needed to vote.

Conflating those who spam with commercial websites or off-topic blogs that serve their own personal interest does not make it so.

You didn't answer whether or not he responded to your PMs? I find it laudable that you tried to warn him. Did he see those messages before he was banned? Did he get a chance to respond? to correct?

[Kali]

85. last reply on this

three juries also = at least three alerts and up to 9 members that agreed it was disruptive - none of us knows how that went, despite any thinking they were unanimous.

I am not alone, aside from at least 2 alerters* (I alerted once) there is consensus in MIRT, something you seem to be ignoring.

there were no replies to anything posted to him that I saw, including my PM. the two warnings were given long before he continured spamming early this morning/late last night. if he didn't look at the yellow banner telling him he had replies or a PM then maybe he didn't see them, I have no idea if he did or not. he had plenty of time to correct since the first warning reply was 5 days ago.

again, if this is so upsetting/important I suggest you contact admins and put the link in YOUR sig line and/or start another OP with it and keep it kicked.


*from comments of people who served on juries for two of the posts

[hlthe2b]

86. You don't know that any of those jurors found it disrupive. No jury voted to hide

This, as you previously admitted was a unique situation. Most of us believe disruption implies MALIGN disruption, not that which could be widely construed as helpful. My prior time on MIRT showed these kinds of things happening on occasion. The best resolutions came when MIRT did not act unilaterally, but instead forward it to admins for them to weigh in--which then made it more clear for the future. Likewise, it afforded admins the opportunity to see if they want to address the issue more widely with a change to the wording for juror instructions, to the TOS, a system-wide announcement or simply for MIRT.

That poster may well have been the most sincere, if not naive' of newbies. Intolerance of obviously malign and intentionally disruptive behavior is to me what MIRT was designed for and those kinds of posters are fortunately pretty obvious. But, with those who come with what appears to be BENIGN intent from the valid content they posted that was in no way misleading, harmful, nor in opposition to our joint aims, to determine they are disruptive for overly posting is a very different issue.

There is a Latin phrase: "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius" that loosely translates to "Kill them all and let God sort it out."
When we lump those who post malign content with those who overly post that which is clearly not, I fear this is the DU equivalence.

[Blue_true]

108. I believe I was on one of those juries.

The post that I saw alerted on, I chose to leave up, because it wasn’t clear that the poster that was alerted on broke the rule that was identified. My guess is the other two juries saw the same, so either the poster is skilled at masking intentions, or the alert was not strong enough to have a jury take the post down. I normally don’t post about jury service, but since you challenged the motives of me and 17 other jurors, perhaps unintentionally, I felt a need to weigh in. Discussions about Facebook are always fraught with divisions, some solid DUERS love the platform, others despise it (I am in the latter camp). What I saw as a juror were referenced to other methods other than Facebook and claims about how much time using one of them would take versus Facebook, then a person makes a one or two sentence reply that got alerted on, I read all posts and expanded them to view the full sequence of comments, and decided that the post should stay, as apparently the majority on my jury and the two others for two other alerts did.

[hlthe2b]

109. Excuse me. I did not in any way at all challenge the jury's motives. Quite the opposite as I agree.

with your assessment of the rule and the posts. It is MIRT's unilateral actions in contrast to jury decisions I question as we have ALWAYS interpreted the rule on spamming as you describe and it is highly unusual for a poster to be banned when they have posted nothing at all disruptive nor questionable, but rather quite the opposite. Perhaps you meant this post as a reply to the other poster with whom I was engaging?

[Blue_true]

110. I apparently mis-understood your post. I was replying to you.

Maybe you were saying that people should be challenged for serial alerts that forces jury action. I am under the impression that if a DU member does several alerts in the same thread and juries chose to keep the alerted posts up, then the alerter faces consequences, I could be wrong on that understanding.

Jury service can be hard sometimes, as I am sure that you are aware of. I have chosen to leave post up that I disagreed with because the poster didn’t violate the rule that was called out in the alert, on the other hand I have voted to hide posts whose substance I agreed with because the alerter got the rule that was broken right, there are other cases where the alerter simply mis-interpreted the substance of the alerted on post but didn’t have any motive for the alert other than a feeling that the rule that was spelled out in the alert was broken.

Have a great night and take care.

[hlthe2b]

111. No We were discussing something totally different. Not issues with alerts nor juries, nor decisions

It was all about MIRT's unilateral actions in view of several null jury decisions (and usually there IS some MIRT deference/respect for multiple juries that judge a post to be acceptable), which usually factors into what MIRT would then do. This is especially true in light of a poster who has shown no malintent nor malign content to their postings. Both the poster and I have had considerable experience serving on MIRT in the past but perhaps during different time periods--where some of the issues and the way in which MIRT acts have undergone some cyclical changes. So perhaps our discussion was a bit esoteric/philosophic

Best to you too.

[cwydro]

43. I dont get what's wrong with it?

Seems to be a decent site.

[niyad]

56. Stephen Colbert's effort. In his monologue the other night.

[cwydro]

57. Yeah, I like him.

Wasn’t sure why anyone was objecting.

[niyad]

59. Have absolutely no idea.

[Kali]

62. nothing wrong with it

except it is being spammed all over the board as replies to OPs that have nothing to do with it. he should have taken advice to knock it off or post it as an OP that could be kicked for visibility and not irritate people.

[cwydro]

66. I guess I've missed that.

This is the first time I’ve seen it.

[Kali]

67. and that is probably why juries are leaving it

kind of clever way to troll the board.

[cwydro]

71. I have to admit I rarely click on links.

Unless I recognize the source.

I did click on this because of the responses.

[AngryOldDem]

122. I was asked to serve on a jury for this this morning.

I opted out because while the post seemed to be harmless, I didn’t have enough context to make an honest decision based on the rule it was violating. If I had known it was all over the board, I would have definitely voted to delete.

Spam is spam to me, especially if it’s randomly posted everywhere. At the least, the poster needs to be schooled on the rules.

[edhopper]

5. So I should just tell all my friends and family

that I keep in touch with throughout the country and the world on FB to just fuck off?

[Yeehah]

21. Because facebook is the only way to do that?

Or what?

[edhopper]

25. with that many people?

pretty much.
I also make and keep professional contacts on FB

[Ms. Toad]

54. With nearly 500 friends, family, peer group members -

and a life that requires me to work about 100 hours a week - yes.

[Yeehah]

65. It's amazing people were able to do such things

before facebook came along.

[Ms. Toad]

83. Actually, we weren't. Which is why I use facebook.

I am in contact with relatives, high school classmates, members of peer groups (especially those who share the same rare disease) in a way that I was not before facebook - because (1) I simply don't have the time to individually connect with each of them and (2) because of the connections between classmates, family, peer group,etc. I have been able to find them.

I had lost touch with virtually all of my high school classmates - and I am now in regular and significant contact with about a dozen. Same with college classmates. Same with relatives at the cousin level of consanguinity or more distant, the vast majority of whom live in different states, and a few high school and college instructors.

My daughter's rare disease impacts approximately 30,000 people in the US. Facebook is the means the rare diseas support group uses to connect those individual both to each other and to drug (and other) trials that are typically impossible to carry out because the population to draw on for particiption is so small. Facebook makes that possible.

I also have friends on facebook who host regular conversations about race, COVID 19, class, etc. with a diverse group of participants. We need more of that in this world, not less - and it is not happening in siloed places like DU or, for most of us, in real life since we tend to gather with like-minded peers.

You may choose to limit your relationships to people you have time to engage with in more a time-consuming fashion. I choose to use the tools that are available to make those contacts easier, and my life richer. There is no value judgment associated with either choice. Facebook is a tool. I use it - and I'm tired of people who have appointed themselves arbiter of all that is good and righ in the world insist on attempting to shame anyone who recognizes the value of this particular tool and who uses it.

[LanternWaste]

99. In your case, yes.... absolutely.

For others, simply more keystrokes.

[Yeehah]

103. Oh, a personal attack?

Says more about you than me.

[grantcart]

34. Yes. But you are to self absorbed to even think of alternatives

I am on 5 different group text threads that touch base with all different family combinations possible.

It is noteworthy that you do not argue the premise that the Russians have and are TODAY using (see Wray's statement today) to attack Biden, simply that it is too inconvenient.

[edhopper]

64. Thanks for the

condescending insult and attack on my intelligence and character, stay classy.

If it's good enough for Joe, it's good enough for me.

https://www.facebook.com/search/top?q=joe%20biden

[Captain Stern]

6. I don't liken using Facebook to being a scab or crossing a picket line.

Those things aren't very much alike at all.

There's a tremendous difference between between striking workers, and folks that have decided to boycott a product that they don't like.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

8. Nothing a little critical literacy can't largely handle.

[Squinch]

30. You're kidding yourself. Seriously, watch The Social Dilemma.

[hlthe2b]

9. I suppose it is easy for me (never registered, never used, but fully aware of FB & what it "offers)

to criticize those who use it.

All I will say is I DO understand the convenience factor. I likewise increasingly understand the limits to which we, as a people, believe we should expect to be inconvenienced in our protests, no matter how serious the issue, the risks, the consequences. This does not bode well for the future.

That said, I also realize that finger-pointing toward FB users is only going to increase their entrenchment and perhaps, resentment on the issue. So, I think we need to look for other strategies to neutralize the harm done by FB.

[LAS14]

12. I've been puzzled by people who complain about what they see on Facebook. For sure, ....

I believe that a lot of RW messaging goes on, but I never saw it. I had a Facebook account for several years and mostly saw stuff from my "friends" or innocuous stuff. I never saw any RW messaging at all. Finally I did what I needed to do (I forget what) to get Breitbart posts just to find out what the RW was saying. What causes some people to see a lot of RW stuff and others not?

I finally dropped Facebook because of their stance on false political advertising. It wasn't a great loss because I didn't like how much time I was spending on absolute trivia.

tia
las

[mnhtnbb]

16. So Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama have no principles?

Just three for example, who apparently are weak and clueless according to the OP.


https://www.facebook.com/joebiden

https://www.facebook.com/hillaryclinton

https://www.facebook.com/barackobama

[Dr. Strange]

93. That seems to be the case.

https://www.facebook.com/democraticunderground

[obamanut2012]

17. bless your heart

[MineralMan]

19. I follow this Facebook Page:

https://www.facebook.com/joebiden

So do 2,891,568 others.

Are you saying that Joe Biden is "weak and a bit clueless?" Is he someone who has no "principles?"

Do you think our next President is a "scab?"

Please think a little longer. Nobody is forcing you to use Facebook. Nobody can force you to use it. Please don't call those who do names. That's not nice at all.

[ancianita]

47. Agree. I not only get Joe Biden's posts, but EFF, ACLU, SPLC, Occupy Democrats, Liz Warren,

Kamala Harris, Techdirt, Unicorn Riot, 538, 270 to Win, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Jay Inslee, WaPo, NYT,
Chicago Mayor's Office, JB Pritzker, Pew Research Center, NOAA, PBS Newshour, Mother Jones, The Root, Steve Bullock, Daily Kos, Politico, The Lincoln Project, ABC 7 Chicago, Wonkette, etc., etc.

In addition to all my friends' posts from all over the country.

These fill up my threads with NO troll bots, just thoughtful discussion.

Seriously. I have no idea why anyone who knows how to use FB settings can't get FB posts and threads that are as informative as anywhere else.

Slamming Facebook for the worst parts of it makes no sense, when people can change what they're exposed to on FB.

[MineralMan]

53. Well, many of the people who make such a big noise about boycotting FB

have never even used it, have no idea how to keep a feed private, or much of anything else about Facebook.

They're just against it - on "principle."

[treestar]

55. Exactly

I see joe Biden posts first. Follow Harris loca Democrats and groups for liberals. Along with groups about literature and books. Groups called I hate Donald Trump and anti-Trump. I rarely see right wing stuff except from dumb relatives.

[GusBob]

102. "Nobody is forcing you to use Facebook"

These threads interest me. There are what, 2-3 A week?

In all the discussion there are plenty of 'you should quit FB ' posts there has never been one reply encouraging people to join FB. Not once that I have seen

It seems as if FB users don't try to control other folks behavior or interests while FB haters do

Which is ironic because FB users are being accused of being manipulated dupes

[MineralMan]

113. Good point!

You're right. Nobody is trying to tell people they should use Facebook. It's a matter of personal choice, isn't it?

[snowybirdie]

20. Please don't tell me who or what I am

or am not. I'm intelligent enough to decide what on FB is useful to me. Generalizations are a lazy way to think.

[Sherman A1]

28. +1000

[hamsterjill]

88. Another +1,000

I’m not much into “herd mentality”. I tend to do my own thing.

[pecosbob]

22. Yeah, sure I'll help save the world so long so it doesn't delay my mocha caramel frappucino

[Aristus]

23. More self-righteous orthodoxy...

Must be fun playing "More Democratic than thou..."

[Sherman A1]

27. +1000

[Codeine]

24. Nobody needs to "justify" the use of a media platform.

I use it in a very specific hobby-focused manner. I don’t see any political content at all unless some idiot old friend posts it, in which case I roll my eyes and scroll by.

People should have the basic critical thinking skills necessary to navigate a media-driven world. I cannot imagine having my vote influenced by a goddamned social media site. Anyone that dumb probably shouldn’t be voting anyway.

[edhopper]

29. This

^^^ It's a tool, that you can learn to use.

[totodeinhere]

44. Agreed.

[edhopper]

26. I have set my privacy settings

to the most private and control who sees my posts.
I am careful about what personal stuff I post.
I don't get any Russian bot stuff or Alt-Right bullshit.
There are ways to use it that are safe.

[redstatebluegirl]

37. I get you love Twitter.

To me it is a bigger cesspool.

[Kaleva]

39. There was a time when one couldn't get away with calling Biden, Hillary, Obama, et al. a scab

[MineralMan]

42. Very True!

Thanks for pointing that out.

[cwydro]

45. Good point!

I’ve noticed OP hasn’t responded to those who have pointed this out.

[Codeine]

49. O, brave new world

To have such people in’t!

[totodeinhere]

48. Your boycott call will be totally ineffective. Facebook has 2.7 billion users word wide.

How many users does DU have? Probably a few thousand.

[Ms. Toad]

50. I have principles. I use facebook.

your analogy is inept and offensive.

You are free to make your own choices about whehter, or how, to use networking tool. Shaming others who make different choices about that tool is offensive.

[cwydro]

72. Exactly.

I’m thinking this thread didn’t turn out the way the OP might have hoped.

[Dream Girl]

84. I was not surprised by the knee jerk defenses. Kind of like Trump supporters with a million

Justifications and excuses. They choose to ignore the truth. How sad.

[cwydro]

87. You're referring to DUers as Trump supporters?

Ok.

I'm going to disagree on that.

[hamsterjill]

89. I disagree, too.

The knee jerk reaction I see here is a bit of pouting by the OP because people have disagreed with her stance.

We are all free to use social media the way we see fit. If there is no alternative view expressed on Facebook, then won’t the real Trump supporters just be emboldened?

[cwydro]

90. This. Thank you.

Exactly.

[Codeine]

95. People with their wrongthink! How dare they!?

Dream Girl knows what is right for you! Fall in line, peasant!

[cwydro]

115. Ha!

Spot on.

[G_j]

121. really?

I don’t think being offensive to people will help your cause.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

51. I liken quitting Facebook to going vegetarian.

If everyone in the world did it, and it meant animals that would otherwise be eaten by us could live full, natural lives, then sure, I'd do it. Even though I like meat, I also like animals.

But I doubt everyone in the world would quit meat, and I doubt everyone in the world would quit Facebook, and so notwithstanding my admiration for animals and my dislike of the spread of disinformation over social media, I don't see the point in giving it up and only depriving myself when others won't.

[Ms. Toad]

52. I thought you might be going a different direction wtih this -

that all too often people who choose a vegan diet become crusaders and work very hard to shame everyone else into making the choice they have.

[brooklynite]

92. Thats what I was thinking...

[lagomorph777]

79. Same here. I know avoiding Falsebook is morally right, even if millions of others use it.

So of course I act on my moral compass. I'll never touch that sewage.

Same with eating animals. I won't do it; others doing it doesn't make it OK for me.

[SlogginThroughIt]

100. Why is it MORALLY right?

I don't see where morality comes into play.

[lagomorph777]

119. Supporting Putin's Platforms (Falsebook, Twit, and RT) is supporting Putin, Trump, and the RePutins

Morally unacceptable to me.

[fescuerescue]

118. I don't like facebook

But I don't really consider it an aspect of MY morals.

I find it objectionable that I am the product that is being sold.

[Alea]

63. I use fb and liken you to what you called me in the title of your thread :)

[Blecht]

80. My reply before I go read the responses to your OP

The denial is strong, even for people who are otherwise progressive. They ignore the published research that clearly demonstrates that Facebook is the most dangerous social media platform of all.

You will be scoffed at and told you are crazy, that Facebook is harmless fun. You will be bombarded with dozens of strawman arguments. You will be told:

"I use it for family news and cat pictures."
"But I don't click on anything, so I'm not supporting them. I just look at my nieces and nephews photos!"
"I guess all the Mah Jongg Lady pages are full of people who support white nationalism. Come on."
"My local Democratic party headquarters has an account!"
"I'm on FB and will continue to be. I don't support white nationalism. That is all."
"Did you turn on a light today? You are endangering the planet!!!"
"Bullshit. Like if you take any transportation using hydrocarbons you are contributing to climate change. Or if you use electricity powered by fossil fuel, your are a climate change denier. Or if you buy food packaged in plastic you are destroying the planet."
"I'll continue to keep up with family and friends there. Your moral preening notwithstanding."


All social media is harmful in a way. DU is a form of social media -- I love it, but we should admit it has its problems. Twitter is bad in many, many ways. But Facebook is actively putting all of its power behind electing Donald J. Trump to a second term, and having an account is supporting that goal no matter how you use it.

Please don't give up trying to spread the word. Many of those in denial are, deep down, critical thinkers, and maybe, just maybe, they will look at the facts and delete their fucking account.

[Kaleva]

94. You have no proof that FB has had a harmful effect on many of us here.

Your comment:

" They ignore the published research that clearly demonstrates that Facebook is the most dangerous social media platform of all."

Do you have links to that published research?

An article published at Time:

"Why Instagram Is the Worst Social Media for Mental Health"

https://time.com/4793331/instagram-social-media-mental-health/

[Blecht]

96. You do kmow who owns Instagram, don't you?

The evidence of the harm Facebook is causing is overwhelming. You must not have been paying attention for the past 5 years.

Google is your friend. I'll give you one from today: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-09-17/facebook-and-mark-zuckerberg-need-trump-even-more-than-trump-needs-facebook


For a good summary of the harm social media causes, watch The Social Dilemma.

[Kaleva]

97. I see a link to an article. Where is the link to the scientific research?

[Blecht]

105. Now you're being intentionally obtuse

First you respond that Facebook isn't as bad as Instagram (owned by Facebook) -- that's a lot like saying that the Nazi party wasn't so bad; it was that damned Gestapo.

Now articles with sources aren't good enough -- you demand that I produce research on a separate but related topic. There's a term for this form of dishonest debate, but I can't think of it right now.

It just so happens that I am a Ph.D. research scientist, so I am pretty good at finding published work. I will do this one last thing for you. Have an abstract of a study about the psychological harm Facebook causes: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28093386/

As for Facebook being in the tank for Trump, there are no published research papers out there, yet. We have to rely on evidence in the public domain, i.e., articles.

[Kaleva]

106. Where is the study that supports your claim...

"... that Facebook is the most dangerous social media platform of all."?

Given that finding such is easy for you, it ought not be much trouble for you to post a quote from a peer reviewed study that supports your claim. I may be wrong, but my guess is that you won't be able to because if you could, you would have already done so. Instead, you are dancing.

Just provide the direct quote from a study that clearly supports the claim that "Facebook is the most dangerous social media of all" and I'll be on my merry way after I admit you proved me wrong.

[brooklynite]

91. You're entitled to your opinion...most people don't share it.

[ismnotwasm]

98. lol

[SlogginThroughIt]

101. Oh another person that wants to shame everyone

How nice.

And look in the thread you compare DU members to Trump supporters. You are making friends today.

[Raine]

104. I don't like FB but this kind of post makes me inclined to use it, haha! 😛 nt

[TheProle]

107. This brand of checkbox orthodoxy only serves to shrink the tent.

A social media platform is only as dangerous as its user is ignorant.

[hunter]

112. I feel the same of television. It made Trump. It must die.

.

[fescuerescue]

114. I thought we have been boycotting Facebook since 2016.

yea they suck

[DesertRat]

120. Who is we?

[fescuerescue]

123. exactly

You can't swing a dead cat around here without someone tell us that we need to be boycotting someone.

[Devil Child]

116. "Stop liking what I don't like!" n/t

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

117. ...