I know at least FB bots are still at work. I just received a warning and had a post deleted that I made a year ago. It was a joke about taking Clorox bleach tablets to cure covid. Very clearly a joke. I don't know how it took a year but they warned me for promoting covid disinformation and self harm...
Someone could be stalking your Facebook history, or if it was a post you shared, someone may have flagged a more recent post/share by someone else, and they deleted all instances of it.
Probably means that someone reported it that said I have some synpathy for FB/Meta... just as we have some liability for content posted by our members, so do they... the difference being that as a multi billion company they also have an asset base and insurance that makes them worth suing. If some muppet takes a clorox tablet and dies his family are much more likely to sue Meta as the 'publisher' than you as the originator.... and it won't be much of a defense for meta's lawyers to say "the originator meant it as a joke" on the "very clearly a joke" thing in the early days of covid some stand up comic in new york made a satire post about how jamming a chili pepper up your ass could confer immunity (satirising the gwyneth paltrow and her jade egg up the VJJ thing) the next day multiple people turned up in ERs across new york and beyond having jammed chilli peppers up their rectums... from which we can take it that somethings are never "very clear" to the entire population
That’s what’s known as natural selection. But then this is Facebook we’re talking about. The average user of that cesspit are little more than cancer cells anyway.
Under current US law, sites aren't liable for posts made by their users. It's the Section 230 thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230 By just threatening to revoke this immunity, lawmakers are able to bully Google, Twitter, Facebook, etc. into engaging in their own speech/thought policing of their sites. Using such tactics to coerce companies into self-censorship is kind of illegal, though? Or at least a legal grey area.
The major problem for us here is that while its likely that section 230 would provide a defense... to present a defense you have to go to court.. for a site with negligible funds a civil suit could kill us before we got anywhere near court (for FB its different - in their case they'd be worried about creating an exception rather like various other exceptions as outlined in your link) In that regard its rather like the arguments around fair use... some people have suggested that we are too quick to jump on the violation of intellectual property... but again fair use is a defense that you'd present in court, not something that means you can never be sued
On the issue of zero tolerance for “unsolicited dms”: In the past I’ve reached out to members (never J.T. Woody to be clear) via dm in an effort to not derail threads. Occasionally a site member will comment in a thread about something that I don’t view as on-topic, but I’m interested in discussing. And in those cases I’ve sent a dm asking if they’d like to talk about it. Is that cool, or is that totally uncool?
Its probably cool - so long as you respect it if they say 'no ta i don't want to talk about that' Like most things it depends very much on context and content When i talk about zero tolerance I'm thinking more of people being hateful or inappropriate towards another member by DM and/or seeking to continue an argument where the other party has made it clear they're not interested
Yeah that's a fair point. Just the threat of litigation is enough. Only the big big sites can afford that kinda thing.
Which is why we find ourselves walking a knife edge with controversial stuff... we don't want to censor for content, but nor do we want to get our asses sued ( I have to say in regard of covid the litigation question was very much secondary to the issues around being dungeoned by search engines and adbots) This is also why we don't allow the giving of specific professional advice (again a knife edge over what is 'specific')
i've gotten those and have done those. what i was referring to were instances where the persons have said "you said X in this thread and I'm here to tell you you're full of shit and you didnt respond to my reply so im going to set you straight" type of stuff. not those words per se, but close enough
And that is a classic example of what we don't tolerate... that happens again report it and we'll deal with the person concerned
Yes - but Facebook and Google are laws unto themselves. Once they decide to blacklist you, it's very, very difficult to get yourself reinstated and by then, the damage is already done.
I had one of those from, of all things, a plot development thread. Some people really, really don't like being contradicted.
Another thing that happened around that time was users posting information or studies that they really didn't understand. I know because I did this myself, by misinterpreting a study on the effectiveness of regular surgical masks versus N95 Masks. One of the examples I saw a lot was a study comparing the effectiveness of masks versus non-mask usage and some were citing a particular study, saying that the study said that masks made no difference. But when looked at the study myself (and to be clear, I'm a layman, so even I could be misquoting it), what the study found was that they couldn't conclude with a statistical significance that masks reduced the transmission rate. With these scientific studies, their threshold is using a 95% confidence interval, and this study found that they could conclude, within 95% confidence, that masks resulted in a rate of transmission (and these may not be exact) of about (.58 - 1.03) compared to non-mask usage. So there was at least a 5% chance that wearing a mask would result in the SAME chance of transmission of NOT wearing one, or up to 3% more than not wearing one. But that's not exactly the same thing as saying they are effective, just that they can't rule out, within a 95%, that they don't make a difference. But they were 95% 'sure' the effect would be between a 42% reduction and a 3% increase. But where within that range the true effect is, can't be determined by the study.
The key thing is that no one in the Mod team is a legal expert on this stuff either. Moose has previous admining experience, but when the whole virus thing hit we were all flying pretty blind and decided to stick to the most conservative course possible. The original intent of the COVID thread (whatever it's called, I requested a Debate Room ban when I stepped down) was that there would be no mention, zero zip zilch, of virus-related issues anywhere else on the forum. Keep it all bottled up in one place where the three of us could keep a microscope on it and nuke anything dodgy before it got more than a couple of views. That didn't prove practical but it seemed like the best option at the time, nuke it before the web-crawlers can even see it.
Hey! I was on this site back when I was 16 and I'd like to delete my old threads, posts, and workshop entries, or at least edit them to be blank. I can't find any option to do so. Help? Unfortunately not seeing any kind of edit button that seems to be available on recent posts like this one.
we don't allow that i'm afraid - we can delete your actual account and remove the personal information, but the content will remain assigned to a random user name
Oh that's cool, as long as the posts don't still reflect this username (I found this because I was googling what content comes up when people google my professional email address....) then that's fine! I would appreciate it. Thank you for the speedy reply.
It seems videos no longer work. This happened suddenly, just a few moments ago. I had just posted a video to my blog and went to check something in it, and it was completely inactive. The same is true for all videos on at least the last 2 pages of my blog, and the most recent one I posted on the Music thread as well. There isn't even a red Play button in the middle of the thumbnail anymore for any of them, they're just images now. No idea if this is a problem here or at YouTube's end or what. But videos are working on Youtube, I checked that.
Nevermind, they're working again. Maybe YT was doing some maintenance work and had to shut that functionality down briefly or something?
Maybe so. I feel like I've had my browser zone out for videos on occasion and it was related to a chrome update. They do look like they're running fine now at least. Take care, man!
yeah it's not anything at our end... videos embeds etc re enabled on the back end, the only site specific thing that can happen is if the host server starts to run out of bandwidth the most bandwidth hungry stuff (like video) stops working first... it doesn't often happen here since our bandwidth demand is pretty small
