Jump to content

Facebook DOWN.


Recommended Posts

43 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I saw that this morning.  Instagram and Messenger are also down.  It's probably not been a good day for some people.  :lol:

Or a great day for addicts to social media who've said they've needed a break and never took it :P 

 

Link to comment

Must have been because I switched from posting here the last couple of days to posting in a couple of health FB pages. They couldn’t handle the massive surge in posts.  I knew me avoiding FB was a good idea.  ;) 

Link to comment

There was a weird comedy of errors. A lot of reports and they are hard to verify so take the following with salt:

  • It seems that the server areas all had locking electronic mechanisms to get to them with no key backup so people had to cut their way in to work with the servers and get them up again. Presumably they could be opened from the inside or it would have been an OSHA nightmare.
  • All employees were unable to access email or get email from outside which complicated attempts to communicate about the problem.
  • Facebook and the others losing their connections caused all kinds of other web infrastructure to fail and without the Facebook references many websites were left fruitlessly trying to connect Facebook in what became an inadvertent unfocused DDoS attack.
  • Facebook claims the outage occurred due to a change in their network routing. Very believable. It was unlikely to be a rogue employee. Even routine changes like this go through lots of approvals.
  • While this is believable it is also possible the outage was intentional.


While the cost would be in the high millions it may have been an attempt to drown out the news of the Facebook whistleblower testifying in the Senate about Facebook knowing the toxic and dangerous misinformation it was feeding to people but not taking steps to manage the problem. This misinformation goes from vaccine misinformation to election lies to information supporting genocidal and apartheidist regimes to pressuring political parties worldwide to adopt combative and suboptimal stances to increase engagement to feeding “controversy” to teenagers and encouraging an unhealthy self-image. This is not active malevolence. The stuff that generates clicks gets prioritized and that is the stuff that leads people down dark roads.

As I said before: Destroy Facebook!

 

Link to comment
On 10/5/2021 at 3:57 PM, The Nehor said:

While the cost would be in the high millions it may have been an attempt to drown out the news of the Facebook whistleblower testifying in the Senate about Facebook knowing the toxic and dangerous misinformation it was feeding to people but not taking steps to manage the problem. This misinformation goes from vaccine misinformation to election lies to information supporting genocidal and apartheidist regimes to pressuring political parties worldwide to adopt combative and suboptimal stances to increase engagement to feeding “controversy” to teenagers and encouraging an unhealthy self-image. This is not active malevolence. The stuff that generates clicks gets prioritized and that is the stuff that leads people down dark roads.

The thing about this is I know what you  mean about the bolded, but while some others may agree, they agree for the opposite reasons. In other words, what you call misinformation and lies they call information and facts.

What some well-meaning people want from facilities such as Facebook is for information they disagree with to be moderated out of existence, and those with whom they disagree be silenced if they won't shut up. The word "censorship" might be bandied about, and some might say in response that FB and other social media are private companies and so it's their right to choose what appears, but the same people will see other platforms such as Gab and Parler as totally illegitimate, simply because they don't censor the speech they disagree with out of existence. Some people want nothing they disagree with to be part of the public discussion. I remember tweeting some counter-narrative opinion on Twitter, and a figure I follow who has over 4 million subscribers on YouTube (a cooking channel called "Food Wishes"), deigned to respond to my tweet by telling me I should get my news from something other than Gab and Parler! Me, a virtual pissant on Twitter, gets a virtual giant to accuse me of getting my data from "disapproved" sources. I suspect he would like it if both platforms were "disappeared". It was interesting to me that he should accuse me of getting anything at all from those two places, especially since I haven't looked at either in literal years. And neither, probably, has he.

Of course the stuff that generates clicks gets prioritized. These platforms are not charities -- they make money with those clicks. If no-one clicks, they lose. But the clicks are also generated from content that you agree with, not just the content you disagree with. It happens that Google, Facebook and Twitter have a bias, and they tweak their algorithms to prefer content that they agree with, not just the content that will make them more money. 

Well, this isn't the forum for disputation, and this leans towards political discussion anyway, even if we only talk vague generalities, so I should just let it go.

Are you on Twitter at all?

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

The thing about this is I know what you  mean about the bolded, but while some others may agree, they agree for the opposite reasons. In other words, what you call misinformation and lies they call information and facts.

I refuse to play the “both sides are the same” game. It is not a difference of opinion where the facts are unclear or a situation where each side has equal support from the people who study the actual data.

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I refuse to play the “both sides are the same” game. It is not a difference of opinion where the facts are unclear or a situation where each side has equal support from the people who study the actual data.

So do I, and that's not the game I'm playing. I'm just saying both sides think the other is wrong, and then the question comes: which side is right? You know you're right, right? Everything you believe is right, right? 

And data can be filtered, explained away, and exceptions granted.

Some things are certain. For the other things there is the possibility of selection bias and confirmation bias. I sometimes amuse myself by considering the different species of bias:

https://catalogofbias.org/biases/

Of course, neither you nor I are subject to any fits of bias, are we? Of course not.

ETA: One form of bias that is of particular interest to me is Selection Bias. You can read the linked article if you want, but an interesting example of it occurred in WW2 when the Allied air forces were considering armoring areas of aircraft that had sustained the most damage. Except that they this involved a substantial selection bias, since all the aircraft that they examined were the survivors of engagements. The aircraft they should have been most concerned with were the ones that didn't survive. 

Edited by Stargazer
Link to comment
1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

It is not a difference of opinion where the facts are unclear or a situation where each side has equal support from the people who study the actual data.

Here's the thing: You and I agree and disagree about a number of things. That's fair. I know you have selected some data to rely upon in your opinions, and I believe you have selected unwisely in some areas. You believe the same about me. I don't think we're going to come to a meeting of the minds of some of those matters, and I'm OK with that.

You have a good mind. Eventually you and I will come to agree with each other about everything. Either because you are convinced I am right in some areas, or I will become convinced that you are, in some areas.

But probably not today.

Best wishes, my friend!

Link to comment
55 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

So do I, and that's not the game I'm playing. I'm just saying both sides think the other is wrong, and then the question comes: which side is right? You know you're right, right? Everything you believe is right, right? 

And data can be filtered, explained away, and exceptions granted.

No, there are a lot of beliefs I have that are incredibly tentative. There are opinions I hold that that aren’t really based on my knowing the data. Other opinions are based on a superficial knowledge and/or a fair bit of trust in others who are experts.

And I know that.

Link to comment
9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

No, there are a lot of beliefs I have that are incredibly tentative. There are opinions I hold that that aren’t really based on my knowing the data. Other opinions are based on a superficial knowledge and/or a fair bit of trust in others who are experts.

I'm pretty much the same way. As to experts, one likes to hope that the experts one trusts in are trustworthy.

Of course, there are some beliefs I have which are not tentative at all, and I believe you share some of those.

9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

And I know that.

Self-knowledge is important.

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...