Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Love4KittyButtholes t1_j96ojeh wrote

Because copying what Elon Musk does with embattled Twitter is going to work so well for Facebook.

28

E_Snap t1_j983uu6 wrote

Remember the headphone jack on cellphones? Pepperidge Farms remembers.

4

wart365 t1_j96i3sk wrote

>The Coveted Blue Checkmark

god, what an awful thing to represent our generation. But I don't blame Zuck for this as paid subscriptions give him the ability to effectively moderate users.

16

[deleted] t1_j96q06o wrote

[removed]

8

compugasm t1_j97xv15 wrote

I enabled the bell icon on Aunt Janice's tombstone, so I can be notified of new content.

5

smors t1_j9acu3a wrote

The original idea was sort of fine. Or at least an honest attempt at fixing an unfixable problem.

For most Twitter users being impersonated isn't really a problem, but for well-known people and organizations it's a major issue. Having a President of the United States twitter account, that twitter has validated as being the real one is a good thing. It means that I can trust that whatever is posted is actually from the POTUS. Same for the Coca-Cola, PETA, The international Commission of the Red Cross and so forth.

It gets ugly when it becomes a sign of having become noteworthy to have it. And when you move a bit down the wellknown scale. There might be more than one who can claim the checkmark for their name. There is apparently an actor called Chris Evans, as well as a radio host. Who gets the mark as being the real Chris Evans?

1

poncho51 t1_j96jcze wrote

F/META and creepy ass Zuckerberg.

16

nonproduction t1_j97b2qt wrote

Spread disinfo to sell verified badges… wow.

3

terminalblue t1_j98mvl8 wrote

these companies are embarrassing themselves.

3

tloxscrew t1_j97woha wrote

I have a hunch here... I think that this has something to do with the court decision that was talked about in the last few days... The one about internet service providers not being publishers. something something (supreme?) court case that could change the the ways of the internet.

If you read the wording of that 27-or-something-year-old law, it states that the service providers are not automatically publishers or something. Now hear me out, I know I'm not precise here with Legalese and all that jazz. Social networks got away with being the service providers and publishers at the same time for years, by providing the platform free of charge and selling ads, moderating content, pushing narratives, meddling with elections, selling personal data etc. — which allowed them to recoup the costs of providing the website infrastructure...

but if they suddenly start actually selling the usage of the platform directly for money, that makes them not-publishers-and-only-innocent-poor-little-service-providers who are not liable for the content posted.

sorry if I'm vague or not well informed, I just skimmed across some articles on here the other day, but now a little light came on, please tell me if I'm wrong or if I'm onto something here, so far you understood what I want to say at all that is. Thanks

edit: found it!

“No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

edit 2:

it's from yesterday

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/02/18/tech/section-230-explainer/index.html

edit 3: typos

1

hlve t1_j9acqa7 wrote

If section 230 is overturned, FB and any other website on the internet can be held responsible for what their users post. As it currently stands, they're not. It doesn't have anything to do with this change. This change wouldn't protect Facebook from that.

1

HannyBo9 t1_j98j4xm wrote

Remember the outrage when Elon announced this on twitter.

1

hlve t1_j9adben wrote

> Remember the outrage when Elon announced this on twitter.

There was some outrage, but mostly showed trends of people buying the subscription so their account seemed more important.

Elon gets outrage because Elon is an outrageous person. Not because he introduced a pay service for users who want to buy it.

1

[deleted] t1_j98ukc1 wrote

[deleted]

1

hlve t1_j9ad648 wrote

> Toxic companies are just holding everyone hostage at this point

...How is this them holding anyone hostage? They're offering an additional service for people who want to use their website. It's not required in order to use the website.

Is it dumb? sure. but hostage holding, or price gouging for more money? Absolutely not...

1

random125184 t1_j9afrps wrote

“Facebook is free and always will be” 🙄

1