Page 31 of 60

Re: Facegram & Instabook

Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2021 9:25 pm
by Brooklyn
youthathletics wrote: Wed Dec 08, 2021 6:41 pm
Brooklyn wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 11:57 pm
Is this your letter Brooklyn ;) .... its from Minneapolis. https://www.instagram.com/p/CXO4WF0Jprp ... _copy_link

Interesting that St Anthony is referred to as a village even though it has over 8,000 people. The majority live across the Hennepin County side as it traverses that and Ramsey County. But it's suburban and I live in St Paul's West Side ghetto. Whoever wrote that letter must have been one of those malcontents who subscribes to the bull______t Ayn Rand taught. After all, she is the worthless POS who started the annual war on Christmas ~ a Holiday I like. :D

Re: Facegram & Instabook

Posted: Wed Dec 15, 2021 7:28 pm
by youthathletics
Elon Musk talking smack with Pocahontas.

Image

Re: Facegram & Instabook

Posted: Fri Dec 24, 2021 8:53 am
by youthathletics

Re: Facegram & Instabook

Posted: Fri Dec 24, 2021 4:41 pm
by tech37
youthathletics wrote: Wed Dec 15, 2021 7:28 pm Elon Musk talking smack with Pocahontas.

Image
Elon for POTUS!

Re: Facegram & Instabook

Posted: Fri Dec 24, 2021 5:18 pm
by Typical Lax Dad
youthathletics wrote: Wed Dec 15, 2021 7:28 pm Elon Musk talking smack with Pocahontas.

Image
Merry Christmas to you and your family.

Re: Facegram & Instabook

Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2021 8:30 am
by seacoaster
Here's a shocker: Facebook using the tactics of political division to disguise its miscues:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-w ... re_twitter

"The day after former Facebook employee and whistleblower Frances Haugen went public in October, the company’s team in Washington started working the phones.

To lawmakers and advocacy groups on the right, according to people familiar with the conversations, their message was that Ms. Haugen was trying to help Democrats. Within hours, several conservative news outlets published stories alleging Ms. Haugen was a Democratic activist.

Later, Facebook lobbyists warned Democratic staffers that Republicans were focused on the company’s decision to ban expressions of support for Kyle Rittenhouse, the teenager who killed two people during unrest in Kenosha, Wis., and who was later acquitted of homicide and other charges.

The company’s goal, according to Republicans and Democrats familiar with the company’s outreach, was to muddy the waters, divide lawmakers along partisan lines and forestall a cross-party alliance that was emerging to enact tougher rules on social-media companies in general and Facebook in particular.

Ms. Haugen’s revelations, and the thousands of internal documents she took with her when she quit Facebook earlier this year, showed the company’s influence on political discourse, teen mental health and other matters. The resulting backlash was emerging as the company’s biggest crisis in years.

Pushing politics to the forefront was one part of Facebook’s response, in keeping with a sharp-elbowed approach driven by Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg, according to people familiar with the matter.

The company conducted reputational reviews of new products. To deter further leaks, internal access settings for research discussions on topics, including mental health and radicalization, were restricted to those directly involved in the work, according to employees and others familiar with the restrictions. Company researchers said they have been asked to submit work on sensitive topics for review by company lawyers, who have sometimes asked for examples of problems to be excised from internal posts.

Mr. Zuckerberg later changed the company’s name to Meta Platforms Inc., to emphasize what he called a new focus on building the metaverse, an immersive digital world he has described as the next phase of the internet. He has been conducting meetings in virtual reality, with digital avatars standing in for the executives, according to people familiar with the meetings. He has encouraged other employees to do the same.

The implication is that Facebook should look toward the future and not get bogged down in the messy past.

Former executives said Mr. Zuckerberg has told employees not to apologize. In contrast to previous controversies, in which the CEO publicly claimed ownership of the company’s mistakes and typically addressed them head-on, Mr. Zuckerberg has spoken little publicly about Ms. Haugen’s disclosures and sent deputies to testify before Congress.

“When our work is being mischaracterized, we’re not going to apologize,” said Facebook spokesman Andy Stone. “We’re going to defend our record.”

Facebook has acknowledged changes to its research operations but pledged to continue the work to understand the impact of its platforms. The company has also said that it invests billions of dollars to protect the safety of its users.

Starting in September, The Wall Street Journal published a series of articles, called The Facebook Files, which identified harm caused by the social-media giant’s platforms, as identified by its own researchers, and its challenges in addressing them. Based in part on Ms. Haugen’s documents, the articles detailed such matters as how Facebook’s algorithm fosters discord and how its researchers concluded that its platforms, especially Instagram, could negatively affect teen mental health.

Ms. Haugen subsequently made the documents available to other media outlets, which published their own articles.

Since then, there have been four U.S. congressional hearings related to issues raised in the articles; a bipartisan coalition of state attorneys general launched an investigation into Instagram’s effects on children; and more than a half-dozen prominent Meta executives and other senior employees have departed or announced their departures.

“The documents speak for themselves,” said Sen. Mike Lee of Utah, the leading Republican on the Senate antitrust subcommittee and a member of the consumer protection subcommittee. He said he is pursuing legislation that would promote more market competition in social media and add more protections for children online.

Facebook has responded to criticism by citing billions of dollars of investments it has made in online safety, as well as partnerships with outside entities and experts. During a Sept. 30 hearing, Antigone Davis, Meta’s global head of safety, pointed to the company’s work with its safety advisory board, created more than a decade ago, which includes internet-safety experts from around the world.

Facebook has previously said it conducted its own research to identify issues and devise ways to address them.

Several members of that advisory board, whose organizations are paid $25,000 a year by Meta, were caught off guard by the Journal’s reporting, according to people close to it. The company hadn’t shared its research into Instagram’s effects on teen girls, nor had it disclosed the relatively small amount of resources committed to protect users in developing countries, those people said.

Some advisory-board members proposed quitting, according to people familiar with the discussions. Some board members ultimately drafted a letter shared with Ms. Davis and other Facebook employees on Oct. 11, calling the disclosures “a pivotal moment for Facebook.”

The draft letter recommended that Facebook overhaul its business model; appoint an executive focused on safety to report to the CEO; make more internal data available to independent researchers; and clearly explain what kind of regulation they could stomach.

Members of the board spoke with Facebook employees about revising the letter before sending it to Meta Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg and other Facebook leaders. In the end, no letter was sent, and no one resigned from the advisory board.

Facebook’s independent oversight board, which provides guidance about the company’s policy-enforcement systems, also expressed its frustrations with the company, stating on its website that Meta had been “not fully forthcoming” in disclosing information about its troubled enforcement program for VIP users, known as XCheck. In response, the company committed to providing the board with what the board called “wider context” going forward.

Mr. Zuckerberg pushed subordinates to respond more forcefully to the bad publicity, according to people familiar with the discussions.

Nick Clegg, the company’s vice president of global affairs and a former deputy prime minister of the U.K., was among those advising Mr. Zuckerberg to take a more restrained approach, according to two people familiar with the discussions. The company ultimately issued a written statement under Mr. Clegg’s name in which it said the Journal’s articles included “deliberate mischaracterizations” and cherry-picked documents, but said it was legitimate for Facebook to be scrutinized over how it dealt with serious and complex issues.

Among the board of directors, longtime members Peter Thiel and Marc Andreessen were the voices encouraging Mr. Zuckerberg to push back against the criticism, according to people familiar with the discussions.

In a virtual meeting in late November, some of Meta’s largest institutional investors asked Facebook to address some of the issues around user safety, according to people familiar with the call. Some investors found Mr. Zuckerberg, who also is chairman, defensive on the call, these people said. They left dissatisfied with Facebook’s overall response, because the company reiterated previous talking points and didn’t share any big new changes, according to a written briefing about the meeting described to the Journal.

Meta shares are down about 9% since the publication of the first of the Journal’s Facebook Files articles."

Re: Facegram & Instabook

Posted: Tue Jan 04, 2022 4:56 pm
by youthathletics
Check out this cop......fast as a mfer: https://www.instagram.com/p/CXiEf5EDCi7 ... 7WAS_aUpJ8

Re: Facegram & Instabook

Posted: Thu Jan 06, 2022 1:11 pm
by youthathletics

Re: Facegram & Instabook

Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2022 7:12 pm
by youthathletics
Rapaport hit by snowball (has language) funny as hell.

:lol: :lol: https://www.instagram.com/tv/CZh5kCNJQh ... =copy_link

Re: Facegram & Instabook

Posted: Sun Feb 06, 2022 10:23 pm
by youthathletics

Re: Facegram & Instabook

Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2022 12:33 pm
by Farfromgeneva
King Mark's unshakeable reign
Scott Rosenberg
Scott Rosenberg
Featured image
Photo illustration: Sarah Grillo/Axios. Photo: Josh Edelson/AFP via Getty Images
Meta/Facebook's historic stock plunge slashed the company's value by roughly one-third over the past week and roiled markets but left one key figure unbowed: Founder-CEO Mark Zuckerberg may be poorer, but he's no less powerful.

Why it matters: Other CEOs facing such disasters have quit, or at least faced boardroom challenges or shareholder revolts. But Zuckerberg's ownership of a class of shares with special voting rights gives him effective and absolute control over the company.

Driving the news: After losing 1/4 of its value at the end of last week, Meta's stock continued to drop Monday and Tuesday.

Investors responded to a quarterly earnings report that revealed the first-ever decline in Facebook daily active users and forecast continued headwinds from Apple's new privacy rules that limit ad targeting on iPhones.
Meta reiterated that it has burned $10 billion on its Reality Labs VR division and said it intends to continue freely spending on its ambitious metaverse-building plan.
Zuckerberg addressed his troops the day of the earnings report and, per Bloomberg, joked about his teary appearance: His red eyes were the result of a scratched cornea, not grief over the losses, he told a company-wide virtual meeting.

As the reality of the market drubbing sinks in, the CEO may face discontent and departures from employees whose stock options have lost value. He may face criticism and second-guessing over his bet on the metaverse.
One thing he will not face is a classic tender-offer fight, where insurgent investors try to wrest control of a company by buying up voting shares. If Zuckerberg won't sell or quit, no amount of outside money or muscle can wrest it from his grip.
How it works: Two decades ago, Silicon Valley developed a model for making sure that founders could keep hold of their companies even while taking in vast amounts of investment that would normally dilute their ownership and power.

Google's founders and early investors pioneered this scheme, borrowing a corporate structure that had been used for decades in the newspaper industry to allow families to retain control of their firms.
A previous generation of tech leaders — most famously, Steve Jobs — had faced the prospect of boardroom fights and exile when times got tough.
The Valley embraced a "founders know best" ethos and began designing its most successful companies so that founders could keep the reins as long as they wished. (Google's founders, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, may have retired, but together they still own a majority of the company's voting shares.)
Be smart: Markets are supposed to enforce a kind of accountability, but the Google-Facebook model of ownership has created a new class of absolute corporate monarchs.

Investing in these companies means betting on their leaders rather than actually owning a sliver of control over their destiny.
Our thought bubble: The tech industry's rhetoric is all about empowering individuals and changing the future, but this governance model is positively medieval.

The human race has plenty of experience with monarchies and the problems that follow when the ruler embraces folly, keels over unexpectedly and/or fails to leave a succession plan.
The other side: Markets, people often complain, force companies to produce results fast and impose a short-term mindset.

A leadership empowered by Facebook-style super-voting shares is free to take a long view and make big bets that sometimes pay off.
The bottom line: Zuckerberg could get bored with Facebook tomorrow and quit to tend to his billions. Or he could be celebrating a Platinum Jubilee long after many of his elders are dead. It's up to him!

Re: Facegram & Instabook

Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2022 4:23 pm
by youthathletics

Re: Facegram & Instabook

Posted: Thu Feb 10, 2022 7:44 pm
by youthathletics

Re: Facegram & Instabook

Posted: Mon Feb 21, 2022 7:48 pm
by Peter Brown
Don’t forget to get your Truth Social app and sign up!

DWAC is at a frothy $83.50.

Both Devin Nunes and your man DJT want the stock to go vertical.

Re: Facegram & Instabook

Posted: Tue Feb 22, 2022 9:10 am
by RedFromMI
I'm hoping it will go vertically downward...

But don't expect it.

What a waste of electrons...

Re: Facegram & Instabook

Posted: Tue Feb 22, 2022 11:51 am
by Peter Brown
RedFromMI wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 9:10 am I'm hoping it will go vertically downward...

But don't expect it.

What a waste of electrons...



DWAC up another 6.5% today.

Might reach parity with Twitter within only a few years as Twitter foes full on woke, with their stock sagging almost daily. Brutal chart for TWTR.

Even liberals will be on Truth Social so they can access accurate information and not state mandated propaganda.

Get your @ handle soon!

Re: Facegram & Instabook

Posted: Tue Feb 22, 2022 12:41 pm
by NattyBohChamps04
How's Parler doing?

Re: Facegram & Instabook

Posted: Tue Feb 22, 2022 1:04 pm
by MDlaxfan76
NattyBohChamps04 wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 12:41 pm How's Parler doing?
They claim to have raised another $20 million but won't disclose from whom... ;) https://techcrunch.com/2022/01/07/right ... n-funding/

Unfortunately, I think these hate platforms may be able to be profitable, if only as platforms with high degrees of gullibility for scam artists and grifters.

But they'll likely cannibalize one another.

Overall, yuck.

Re: Facegram & Instabook

Posted: Tue Feb 22, 2022 1:30 pm
by Peter Brown
NattyBohChamps04 wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 12:41 pm How's Parler doing?



So, interesting question and let me answer.

I’d think DWAC/Truth Social has the most potential, because Trump will be on it and he’ll bring a fair bit of energy. It’s still in Beta so only those users can attest to its cleanliness and ease of use, they did a reverse merger and have a ton of cash. I’m not sold on some of their senior execs, but bringing in Nunes is a step in the right direction.

Parler has its own deep funding. The Mercers have been the primary backers and they can keep it doing indefinitely, I have no idea who put in $20 million, but there was an invitation only subscription agreement and DECK being sent around by some folks. My guess is the Mercers did the whole round. Candace Owens’s husband runs it. It’s actually not bad,

Then you have GETTR, run by Jason Miller of Trump World, and financed by Miles Kwok. It’s a clown show.

There is room for really only one free-speech competitor to Twitter. I’d bet GETTR goes out of business, and eventually Parler and Truth Social merge. When the Trump clan desert Twitter en masse, others will follow. Don Jr and Eric and such, Kayleigh/Kellyanne etc…, they’re gonna eventually go outside Twitter.

One problem I see with most of these platforms is the lack of energy as you become an echo chamber of ideas. It’s simply everyone cheering each other on rather than debating. Twitter stinks because a bunch of Oberlin libs run the safety side, booting conservatives as much as they can without being spanked by senior management, but at least there is energy in argument.

Re: Facegram & Instabook

Posted: Tue Feb 22, 2022 1:34 pm
by MDlaxfan76
you mean in trolling.

Not discussion, not debate..."argument". Truth be damned.