• Log In
  • Sign Up
    • Apparently photos of lips 👄 and the word “sex” in the URL are triggering Facebook’s algorithms? 😀

      This is the “dangerous” link

      Edit: Fun times! After posting about this on FB, a couple of hours later I was asked to review my account for spam, so that I can check if spam is being posted with my account from a rogue app.

      The post with the screenshot below is now "frozen", I can't comment on it any more :D

      Instead, I'm getting errors

      Below, the error I got when I tried to directly post the article in question.

    • I know I can't believe how the table has turned on Zuckerberg. I remember watching his commencement speech at Harvard then boom out go the lights. I still say Facebook was founded on the notion of judging college girls on their looks or their subjective lack thereof and is having a hard time shaking DNA threaded into a connection built on a lack of substance.

    • Seems Cake is still in the human policing model just now, there was another thread with suggestions on forum type mods and stuff. Guess we wait and see.

      Edit: forgot to add facebook = 🙄

    • I should add that there are plenty of quality interactions to be found on Facebook. But it just seems to be an amplifier for poor human qualities such as judgement and vanity. And I don't think Zuckerberg intentionally wished for any of this. I think the good intentions were there but the DNA was ripe for exploitation.

    • But it just seems to be an amplifier for poor human qualities such as judgement and vanity.

      I might believe that. But then i see their feed algorithm pushing up vanity status updates like changing your profile photo and I think otherwise ;)

    • Years ago I could see gaping holes in Facebook's privacy and I tried to tell them about it. I got a good audience, they nodded, but they took no action. Finally I got exasperated and told a trusted friend who works there at a fairly high level and he said "In order to build a big company, you have to break something. Google broke copyright and Zuck broke privacy. He knows, but it's part of growing."

      One example was you could invite someone to a Closed Group and they were auto-joined. But Closed meant Open as far as being able to see a member list. Who knew? So suddenly I was a member of a group for all the world to see that I never would have joined voluntarily. It was embarrassing.

      You know they chose that scheme because it led to growth. It wasn't a values-based decision.

    • Such great insight Chris. Values is another pesky word that is difficult to monetize just like the word thoughtful. Can't the investment community see there could be a return on interaction rather than only on a return on investment? We need more social impact investors!! And more proofs of concept like Cake!!

    • Forgive me if I miss something essential here but I do not understand the reasons everything needs to be monetized, when it comes to social media. More importantly how. If monetizing equals value in terms of human (and online) society progress I am all for it. Yet in my view however, all I see is this mad gold rush with total disregard for the essential things that are supposed to be actually valued. Such as first and foremost sharing knowledge for the good of mankind. Side values such as honesty, sincerity, empathy, will follow along. Choosing the opposite direction, will attract exactly the other attributes everyone seems to dislike, when they all seem to forget why.

    • I am thinking that, just as with old craftsmen such as watch repair or even shamans, or any other human interaction for that matter, there is always more than one side to it and that means effort and energy invested still could and should be rewarded. I guess the tricky part is in determining the type of service and reward type, what's offered, why and what is being sought after. I could never for example understand how someone like Pew Die Pie is such a financially accomplished star. Because I do not play video games, to me the value isn't obvious, however I can understand what he represents to those that appreciate what he does.

    • My view is that Zuckerberg is a thief and he brings a criminal's mentality to his enterprise.

      He's going to gouge his marks for everything he can.

      What's happening now is long overdue. Maybe we owe the Russians our thanks.

    • You make a very good point as empathy is a vital part of the human condition but I do believe technology is playing on our base instincts a little too much. I believe the success of PewDiePie has a direct correlation with the thirst for the sensational which was touched on in a very interesting book written by Dr. Peter C. Whybrow called the Well Tuned Brain

      In the book, Dr. Whybrow mentions how certain aspects of technology play off the first area of our brain to form as a species, the primitive or (ancient) brain. An area of the brain helping run our limbic system responsible for instinct and mood controlling our basic emotions of fear, pleasure, and anger.

      So as PewDiePie rants on the sensational he is triggering the primitive part of the brain rather than the frontal cortex which houses reason which Dr. Whybrow mentions does not fully form until the age of 25. No coincidence that PewDiePie’s audience trends young. And it seems to be a self fulfilling loop where the more we are exposed to the sensational, the more we accept it as normative, then we share to shape the perceptions of others where technology is dispensing a reactive treat for a network of Pavlov's dogs.

      As one who hates problems without a potential solution addressed, I believe that looking back to ideas around technology inspiring collective intelligence through associative trails of learning offered by Vannevar Bush, Douglas Engelbart, and Ted Nelson is something to look at in future implementations of how we connect with information. For example what if the reference I shared on Dr Whybrows book was a link directly to a passage in the book where you could access it for pennies then pay more for additional related passages or the full price of the book should you be interested. And what if there was a review attached to that passage from somebody you knew with links to studies to reinforce the merits of that passage where you added a comment to that passage in his book adding your own insight to my comment linking back to this thread on Cake.

      To some at the outset this may seem like noise but to me it appears to be an invitation to dig deep around a subject. Maybe you woudn't find my line of reasoning on PewDiePie interesting enough to dig into which is fine but are there other topics of which you are interested in where you would have a tendency to want to dig (from the inside out)? Could a child who is a Star Wars fan struggling with math be inspired to learn trigonometry if there were associative trails of interesting content through the lens of how the hyperdrive works on the Millennium Falcon?

      Technology delivering a proactive treat rather than a reactive one from an emergent connection of Pavlov's dogs.

      "Food" for thought.

    • I don't know why I like emojis more on Cake than any other platform. They really seem to be a part of the psychology of the interaction. For instance I can tell when my comments push the boundaries when I receive a number of thinking emojis. At 54 I am still trying to find my voice as a writer and this is the only place I feel I can let it all out. (As you can probably tell. haha!!!)

    • Wxwax, I have never believed that Zuckerberg is a thief and brings a criminal's mentality to the table, possibly because I didn't want to. I have a lot of respect for Kara Swisher's reporting and she has consistently judged him to be earnest, just young and driven by investor's needs for profit and growth.

      But I notice with her latest article in The New York Times, she's changed. And with these latest revelations I can feel myself changing opinions too. He and Cheryl are starting to feel evil now.