In what may be bad news for Facebook, it has been found that uses of social media sites are less likely to recommended something online as they are exposed to a larger potential of adverse comments on their recommendation.
Facebook has more than 1.23 billion active users worldwide, with over 50 percent of all users logging on to it on any given day. Most of Facebook's revenue comes from advertising and the company is looking at ways to make the site a more effective advertising platform for marketers. This includes selling ads that are more targeted to their users.
However, researchers have found that users of social media websites are less likely to use them to say positive things about their favourite products and services. Instead, they are more likely to express their opinions about products in intimate face-to-face social situations. This is because most users usually have a wide range of "friends" or "followers" on social media sites, outside of their immediate family and friends, which deters them from expressing their opinions as they feel more vulnerable to adverse comments.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday June 28 2014, @01:43AM
I posted this [soylentnews.org] anonymously because I wanted to separate my persona from "adverse comments." However, it was a form of self-censorship artificially and in a compulsory manner put into place because of a fear of a backlash. What is described in this article is what I felt compelled to do, and was brought to light only because a brave anonymous coward called me on it.
So now I'm telling the truth -- Niggers. With a capital "N."
But let's get deep here -- some of you want to treat the internet as real-life, and you want us all to be as civilized here as we are in real-life. But that's just not the case. The reason why is that there's still a significant diaparity between what's posted on the internet and what real-life is. The extrapolated gist of the article is that some Reddit poster with a Tumblr blog with pro-feminist and immigrant views now finds themselves marginalized and even subjecting themselves to self-censorship because what they post online is counter to what they actually believe in the meatspace. I am drunk. But this is still good news, because what people believe in the meatspace is still much different than what they claim to believe in cyberspace. It means there is still hope. For the powers that be are trying to compromise meatspace by saying that any argument can be silenced in cyberspace by calling racism, or terrorism, or any other bullshit appeal to the manufactured emotional weakness of the public-at-large. People online are felt compelled to go with it or become marginalized. But real-life is much still much different and much more honest. That's a good thing to know.
No. Fuck you. Niggers. Beaners. Krauts. Zipperheads. Sieg Heil!*
* that was meant ironically, so I am immune from being modded down.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by fadrian on Saturday June 28 2014, @02:33AM
No offense, but what the hell are you talking about? You really shouldn't drunk post because what you write when you do makes very little sense. I think you're trying to say people act differently on- and offline - well, duh, Captain Obvious. It's just wrapped in a nasty wrapping and sort of unclear, you know. I'm sure what you were saying was important to you. It's a shame that you can't seem to string the words together. You might do better sober - just sayin'.
That is all.
(Score: 1) by c0lo on Saturday June 28 2014, @04:22AM
Does the meatspace makes perfect sense? The way I see it: far from it and this on an everyday basis
Then why should we expect the posts on SN to always make at least sense? Why would we want to restrict what one can express on SN about "The Real World" - this will surely drive SN towards an aseptic, pale and possibly boring image of the life.
If you don't feel the need to take part in a bacchanalia [wikipedia.org] from time to time, or even only the more "modern" dia de la muertos [wikipedia.org]**, why ask others to abstain from them and share with SN their experiences?
Seems like the "live and let live" spirit disappears as the time passes; I wonder how much of the extreme overreaction we are seeing in the today societies are due to the dwindling good side of the "je m'en fiche" attitude.
--
** yes, I know the day of the dead is not the same as a bacchanalia.
However, the westernalized civilization lacks a festival with such a focus: another area in which the aseptic conditions lead to boredom.
Com'on man, dare to celebrate the decay and rot and the metamorphosis of what you hold dear (ideas or persons) in a dead matter, to be recycled by the future. Dare to make yourself subject of decay (be drunk, go crazy) even for some short periods of time. It may give you a feeling of how little actually worths whatever you hold as valuable while "living your normal life" - if you can live with that feeling on an everyday basis, you'll become a better person.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 4, Insightful) by kaszz on Saturday June 28 2014, @02:38AM
Real-life meatspace is more honest? give me a break. In spaces that include peer pressure and possible physically felt backlash. People will say what others expect them to say or they will be punished by being ostracized in different ways. One can start with a girl that asks if her new dress makes her look fat.. Telling a different opinion on problem solving to your boss, having and telling a different opinion on politics, immigration, sex, religion, computer environment etc to people around you. Which means discussions are impaired because collectively it's decided that some outcomes may not happen and some thought paths are illegible.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by clone141166 on Saturday June 28 2014, @02:40AM
Overlooking all the flamebait you dangled around the place in that post, I think there will always be obvious differences between real-life interactions and online interactions. But I don't think they're quite as clear cut as you are suggesting.
What is considered "acceptable" behaviour and what isn't depends almost entirely on the context; why it's being said, how it's being said and who it's being said to. As more and more "average" people begin to have more frequent online interactions, of course the expectations of what is and isn't appropriate is going to shift to be more in line with real-life expectations.
But I agree it is sad that the almost total freedom of expression that the internet enjoyed during the 80's/90's is beginning to decay. That said there are still some communities left (like SoylentNews) where people are slightly more tolerant and are able to separate valid points from within posts that are loaded down with incredibly racially insensitive language.
I would argue that having the right to say something and then choosing not to say it out of concern for how it might make others feel is actually a good thing in a lot of cases.
If some people didn't abuse their right to free speech for the sake of sensationalism maybe we wouldn't have quite so many attempts to restrict those rights......
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tynin on Saturday June 28 2014, @03:43AM
If some people didn't abuse their right to free speech for the sake of sensationalism maybe we wouldn't have quite so many attempts to restrict those rights......
Quite the leap you make. Loaded with its own bit of sensationalism, and tainted with defeat.
Regardless, when an actor on a stage (as we all are), lets others know they wear a mask from time to time, for the amusement of others (and themselves), perhaps just take it at face value and quit over analyzing it. Enjoy it or pass it over, or as someone else said, if your eyes offend you pluck them out.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 28 2014, @03:50AM
> That said there are still some communities left (like SoylentNews) where people are slightly more tolerant
> and are able to separate valid points from within posts that are loaded down with incredibly racially
> insensitive language.
The term "racially insensitive" misses the issue here. What we are really talking about is someone displaying particularly poor math skills. Fundamentally, all bigotry is simply a failure of statistical analysis lead by confirmation bias.
When someone demonstrates that they can't reason very well that puts everything they have to say in doubt. If we all had infinite time and energy we could afford to try to tease out any possible nuggets of truth -- after all a stopped clock is still right twice a day. But we don't have the resources to do that so it becomes a case of, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 28 2014, @04:06AM
What you call math, others call opinion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 28 2014, @05:11AM
> What you call math, others call opinion.
Every thought we have is nothing more than an opinion. It all comes down to how good of an argument we can make that our opinion is supportable. Bad math makes for a very poor argument.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Saturday June 28 2014, @04:32AM
LOL... Why!! Aren't you a smart ass?
---
(leaves singing:
"And I'm too sexy for my hat
Too sexy for my hat what do you think about that"
)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 28 2014, @05:15AM
> LOL... Why!! Aren't you a smart ass?
I try to be as smart as I possibly can, ass, mouth, head, hands, all parts of me.
But if you are trying to say that bigotry is not bad math, I guess I'm not smart enough to even see an argument there.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday June 28 2014, @06:58AM
Bigotry: stubborn intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
As an example, in my view, young earth creationists qualify. Like them [examiner.com] (statisticians included)
My point: bigotry is neither good nor bad math, it's simply not math. Actually, if you come to think of it, most of the times math (specialized or not by statistics) has nothing to do with a lot of other human traits - otherwise the "History repeats itself" wouldn't hold true in a quite remarkable number of occasions (we, as humans, keeps repeating the mistakes of our ancestors. If you think this is math, we have/use different semantics for the term)
(oh, so you don't just try to pose as a smart ass. My apologies)
Feeling the compulsion to come with an answer (so characteristic to smart asses) defocuses one from searching for the relevant questions that need asking. Try sometime the experience of being, on purpose, as stupid as possible in the face of reality: you may discover many interesting (at least, if not even relevant) things. I do it all the time.
(e.g.: I don't try to make my reproductive organs smart. I found the physiological use of them more satisfying than the use for philosophical purposes).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 28 2014, @02:47PM
> Bigotry: stubborn intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
That's the what of bigotry, not the why. I'm talking about the cause and really, the cause is most relevant question. Anyone can identify what is right in front of them. The hard part is understanding how it came to be.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday June 28 2014, @10:58PM
That was terminology.
I started with it to table my argument of why I consider the young earth creationists (YEC) as fitting the definition.
Then I provided a list of scientists (at least one of which is statisticians) who are YEC.
Thus providing a counter-example to your assertion of "bigotry is caused by insufficient math/stats background" (if a professional statistician can be bigot, then your assertion is false in general)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 29 2014, @12:47AM
Your argument as to why bigotry is not a poor application of math is that young earth creationists are "scientists."
I strive to be a smartass, you clearly strive to be a dumbass.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday June 29 2014, @01:21AM
Incorrect. My argument is that the bigotry is not related with one's capability to handle maths in the correct way
(against the initial smart-ass argument which was "What we are really talking about is someone displaying particularly poor math skills" [soylentnews.org]).
I have provided an example of at least a person with high mathematical/statistical skills who is still a bigot.
Correct. I prefer my choice because, from a dumbass position, one has better chances to learn:
* by admitting a limited knowledge
* by refraining from getting to half-assed answers (that do usually block further relevant questions); and
* by not wasting energy in posing as smart.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 28 2014, @08:30PM
> Bigotry: stubborn intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
Uncle Ruckus would like to have a word with you.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Rickter on Saturday June 28 2014, @03:17AM
This morning, I looked for an item on eBay. This evening, I had a picture on my feed from eBay saying, "Hey, we've still got what you're looking for," with a picture of the item I'd searched for. Yeah, no thanks Facebook, blocking eBay ads now.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Saturday June 28 2014, @03:40AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by lhsi on Saturday June 28 2014, @06:50AM
I use Tinfoil for Facebook on Android, which does the same thing.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday July 01 2014, @03:32PM
I just periodically report every ad I see on Facebook as being offensive. Advertising offends me ;) Eventually you'll damn near stop seeing ads entirely! Of course, stop doing that for a few months and they'll slowly trickle back in...
The bonus is you get to pollute their advertising database :) I suppose it wouldn't be too hard to filter out anyone who reports too much, but I doubt they would have bothered with that yet.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 28 2014, @05:13AM
Maybe instead of recommending products of FeebleCrook, people could un-recommend products. "Hey, don't buy a Widget XY 201, the handle breaks off." That way the hate would turn to love, "Thanks for sharing that, you saved me $34 that I would have spent on that lousy product." It would eventually come around to the manufacturers having to (horror!) make _quality_ products instead of the junk we are offered.
Have mind, will dream...
(Score: 2) by VLM on Sunday June 29 2014, @01:35PM
I realize I'm posting late to the discussion but there's already a trivial workaround.
Philips sold a totally awesome 800 lumen 10 watt LED bulb, a little expensive but near perfect replacement for legacy bulbs.
With a minor fatal flaw. After a couple weeks / months either they or their chinese counterfeiters had a ckt board problem such that they all fail. So rather than 20 year lifetimes and all that BS compared to old bulbs, they only lasted a couple months and they're all dead by now.
Of course the Amazon page filled up, but the product life cycle is so short, that versions 2, 3, and 4 were already in production. If they have the fatal flaw or not is unknown, but it doesn't matter for sales of ver 2 3 and 4 because all the hate is on the amazon page for version 1 of the bulb.
To some extent its just good greenwashing and value engineering. If you really wanted to save money and the environment you'd buy old fashioned bulbs that last years instead of super expensive toxic construction LEDs that are designed to only last 8 weeks but are heavily greenwashed.
This happens all the time with cars and hard drives and monitors and "computer stuff" in general, this light bulb is just one individual example.
There are exceptions, I have cast iron cookware from a USA mfgr thats the same as its been for a century or so, and its pretty awesome. Also an all aluminum pressure canner, again made in USA, don't think that's changed in 75 years.
(Score: 1) by jbruchon on Saturday June 28 2014, @07:03PM
Social pressure is used to silence people. The war on anonymity and pseudonymity results in plenty of "mandatory real name" profiles that are nice and sanitized...and relatively quiet.
A person's beliefs frequently become part of their sense of self-identity, and challenging one such belief effectively becomes the same as telling that person that they are wrong/ignorant/bad/etc. What ultimately happens when you put a group of people together is that they only say things that are "safe" to say around the other people; that means that they're withholding their thoughts and opinions for fear of very personal and potentially violent retaliation if it challenges deeply held beliefs of someone else that can hear them. This is almost always a bad thing because it constitutes "thought bullying" and silences healthy challenges to bad opinions, ideas, or false facts.
By forcing people to attach their real name to everything they say, you force their sanitized speech. The bigoted or hateful thought bullies would argue that this "keeps people polite and decent and civilized" but the truth is that it lets them force others to fall in line with their beliefs more easily. Any nail that sticks its head up against your beliefs becomes easy to cut off and silence.
I have witnessed this happen on local mailing lists: a person who is a manager of a local business makes a statement that someone else doesn't like, then that manager's business becomes a giant target for that grouchy busybody with too much spare time. The person makes it their mission to drag the business through the mud to punish the person for daring to think differently. It's gruesome and far from what I'd consider civil. Is it any surprise that people don't want to associate when every association has their name all over it and could bring them real-world injury if one person with too much spare time and a malicious nature happens upon that association?
I'm just here to listen to the latest song about butts.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Sunday June 29 2014, @01:20AM
I think parent poster is insightful. That's just me..