WELL SHOULD THEY? The Washington Post has a SCOOP! and it is that Facebook was the worst during the 2016 election. No, for real! It turns out a Russian "troll farm" in St. Petersburg called the Internet Research Agency spent some money on Facebook political ads MAYBE for Trump, but
I think you know that he meant that it's reasonable to be able to attribute speech to a name. Address requests reek of illegal schemes but I believe his name to be Charles Ventin.
Didn't he blow a gasket in the Daytona 500 in 2002? Too bad they don't give participation ribbons in NASCAR. Chuck would be able to carpet his condo with them.
That and to feed it money so more people see your posts. And if a post is doing well, that just means you should boost it more (I.e. Pay more money) -- it'd be a shame if you didn't and they had to start throttling your impressions. It's rather incessant and insidious.
Then there's the question of how much of that 100K was because someone confused a daily campaign limit with a lifetime campaign limit. Facebook is designed to take a lot of your money regardless as to whether what you're doing is effective -- and whether there's any efficacy to that (yay, some randos gave me likes ...hooray)
There is also the possibility that there was all this collusion and attempted manipulation going on through social media, but in the end it had no real effect. Our country really is just that stupid to elect this man, regardless of any foreign machinations.
Oh, you can always go back through and look for older 'Dear Shit Fer Brainz' articles. But I also just read the one from today about the guy who wants to fuck his computer. You might like that one. It's bonkers.
Big companies typically aren't clean. If they look like they are, it's likely because they're not that big, or they spend more to hide it. If you can justify any kind of 'mainstream consumerism', you can probably justify using Facebook on the same principle.
But, yeah. The comment is flawed. I didn't realize that the group here is so small.
I do know that. Just right here there are TWO posters name "+Anonymous".
One of them talks about people not "being worthy" if they practice the prudent and time honored use of pseudonyms to protect themselves from retaliation for expressing their opinions.
The other +Anonymous can't decide to share their name with us.
What are the odds that these two +Anonymouses are the same person?
We're not isolated. We wander about. We just always come back here, because it's relaxing, and it's relaxing because we keep trolls out.
I think you know that he meant that it's reasonable to be able to attribute speech to a name. Address requests reek of illegal schemes but I believe his name to be Charles Ventin.
Strange.
THE Chuck Ventin?
Didn't he blow a gasket in the Daytona 500 in 2002? Too bad they don't give participation ribbons in NASCAR. Chuck would be able to carpet his condo with them.
This is not nearly as strange as it gets. Try visiting on a Sunday.
I don't know who that is. Wrong guy.
No spoilers, I'm guessing?
That and to feed it money so more people see your posts. And if a post is doing well, that just means you should boost it more (I.e. Pay more money) -- it'd be a shame if you didn't and they had to start throttling your impressions. It's rather incessant and insidious.
Then there's the question of how much of that 100K was because someone confused a daily campaign limit with a lifetime campaign limit. Facebook is designed to take a lot of your money regardless as to whether what you're doing is effective -- and whether there's any efficacy to that (yay, some randos gave me likes ...hooray)
There is also the possibility that there was all this collusion and attempted manipulation going on through social media, but in the end it had no real effect. Our country really is just that stupid to elect this man, regardless of any foreign machinations.
Oh, you can always go back through and look for older 'Dear Shit Fer Brainz' articles. But I also just read the one from today about the guy who wants to fuck his computer. You might like that one. It's bonkers.
Then why the alias, +Anonymous?
You"believed " it was Charles Ventin a minute ago and now you don't know who he is?
Make up your mind.
I don't know the racer you were talking about. Different people can have the same name, you know.
Not so sudden actually.
A quick look at Facebook's history would show plenty to hate.
And it doesn't all involve Russian trolls.
Because you couldn't verify my name anyway. Disqus has no credential feature. Better to prove a point.
Big companies typically aren't clean. If they look like they are, it's likely because they're not that big, or they spend more to hide it. If you can justify any kind of 'mainstream consumerism', you can probably justify using Facebook on the same principle.
But, yeah. The comment is flawed. I didn't realize that the group here is so small.
I do know that. Just right here there are TWO posters name "+Anonymous".
One of them talks about people not "being worthy" if they practice the prudent and time honored use of pseudonyms to protect themselves from retaliation for expressing their opinions.
The other +Anonymous can't decide to share their name with us.
What are the odds that these two +Anonymouses are the same person?