Facebook’s AI failure wiped out Kansas Reflector links. Even Facebook may not know what went wrong.
https://kansasreflector.com/2024/04/11/facebooks-ai-failure-wiped-out-kansas-reflector-links-even-facebook-may-not-know-what-went-wrong/
Facebook’s unrefined artificial intelligence misclassified a Kansas Reflector article about climate change as a security risk, and in a cascade of failures blocked the domains of news sites that published the article, according to technology experts interviewed for this story and Facebook’s public statements.
The assessment is consistent with an internal review by States Newsroom, the parent organization of Kansas Reflector, which faults Facebook for the shortcomings of its AI and the lack of accountability for its mistake.
It isn’t clear why Facebook’s AI determined the structure or content of the article to be a threat, and experts said Facebook may not actually know what attributes caused the misfire.
I saw that lawyer's behaviour as utter desperation because his ability to defend Skum had run right up against Skum's inability to keep his big, uninformed yap shut, and he has nothing left in his armory except bluster and nonsense. Astonishingly unprofessional.
Mike is writing negatively about Skum's lawyer.
The sterilisation of 'mentally unfit' women went on in many countries and a hundred years before the internet was even a thing. I very much doubt you know a single fact about the real eugenics movement, including Elon's enthusiastic support for its principles.
By all means, however, do keep posting drivel which will make people hope that, sterilised or not, you don't managed to pass on your brain worms to any unfortunate offspring of your own.
It's not too late, and it was a big enough fuck up that a proper apology and direct contact would have made a huge difference. The way Meta treated Marisa Kabas was beyond rude.
Denise pointed out in that thread that WP 6.3 was exceptionally buggy and dangerous, but I still think the real trigger was a human false report of some kind. That doesn't mean the malice was coming from Meta, but the Reflector is in Kansas where the shenanigans around newspapers have been well documented right on this blog and elsewhere.
Denise (rahaeli) on Bluesky posted
https://bsky.app/profile/rahaeli.bsky.social/post/3kpn6nyk5ok2i
"Update to yesterday's thread on the "Meta blocking this story" incident: I have now actually gone to look at the details of the stack the Kansas Reflector, the site that originally posted it, is running. It's Wordpress 6.3 with a bunch of outdated plugins and widgets.
This has moved the needle on my certainty that the "automated detection blocked the link as malicious" explanation is the correct explanation from 99.9% confidence to 99.999% confidence, and if the Reflector is smart, they will hire someone with forensic Wordpress security skills for an audit"
There are a lot of outdated WP blogs out there though. Does Meta flag all of those as well?
Mike, why isn't it possible that someone at Meta decided to 'disappear' or limit the original Reflector article, and then the entire system just rolled on from that?
Is it not possible that it's malice AND then the system acting as designed? I doubt it's Zuckerberg making that kind of decision, but is it impossible that a bad actor - even outside Meta - triggered this, through malicious reporting of spam or dangerous content?
Someone needs to ask the kind of people claiming this isn't rape whether being trapped in a small space with a much larger man and having one of his fingers shoved up their vulva or anus, is measurably less distressing than having his penis inserted in the same manner.
In fact, I wish someone would ask von Clownstick that question. Or one of his idiot sons. Or Nancy Mace, for that matter.
Universal healthcare.
Housing for all.
Guaranteed basic income for all.
Public utilities and infrastructure paid for by government.
Oh, that's socialism, which is economic policy like capitalism, not communism which is a political system like democracy and one party rule.
Perhaps you should name the communist policies you think are so harmful. I bet you can't tell which ones are actually communist, and which are socialist.
Keep my name out of your mouth, fuckhead. And stop twisting my words.
The people who need bigoted garbage deleted from comment section are not the "most fragile/weak". They're the people whose rights are being attacked, not just by ignorant commenters, but by the rich and powerful in the society in which they live, who need protection and support. A decent society does not allow powerless innocents to be treated like shit and spoken about like they are worthless, just because a few morons have their panties in a knot over differences in how they want to live their lives.
Allowing transphobic, homophobic, misogynistic or racist crap to be posted and then to remain on a site, diminishes the site and all those who read it without protesting its existence. It's harmful to the subjects and offensive to any right thinking person. If you imagine you have to be 'weak' or 'fragile' to be fiercely opposed to such viewpoints being splattered like diarrhoea, pretending to be reasonable dialogue, then there's something wrong with your moral compass.
"you can’t switch over to 100% renewable energy production for decades"
The same is true of nuclear. So, since nuclear is much more expensive, and much more prone to catastrophe because of mismanagement or military attack, why not spend the time and money on renewables? A hostile country can take out a nuclear power plant in days. It would take a lot longer than that to destroy every solar roof installation, every windfarm, every hydro dam.
The biggest argument for renewables is that the fossil fuel wankers don't want them. That means they see them as a real alternative and threat to their money making. So let's do what the bad actors don't want us to do, for a change.
Researchers in ecological economics call for a different approach — degrowth3. Wealthy economies should abandon growth of gross domestic product (GDP) as a goal, scale down destructive and unnecessary forms of production to reduce energy and material use, and focus economic activity around securing human needs and well-being. This approach, which has gained traction in recent years, can enable rapid decarbonization and stop ecological breakdown while improving social outcomes2. It frees up energy and materials for low- and middle-income countries in which growth might still be needed for development. Degrowth is a purposeful strategy to stabilize economies and achieve social and ecological goals, unlike recession, which is chaotic and socially destabilizing and occurs when growth-dependent economies fail to grow.
You live in the richest country on earth where people can't afford basic health care and literally die because of that. You live in a country where a minute fraction of what you spend subsidising fossil fuels and the military industrial complex, could be used to ensure the health, housing, nutrition, and safety of every resident. And if half that expenditure was turned towards ending the use of fossil fuels and providing renewable energy, climate change could be halted, even reversed.
Yet you call the idea that:
Degrowth is a purposeful strategy to stabilize economies and achieve social and ecological goals, unlike recession, which is chaotic and socially destabilizing and occurs when growth-dependent economies fail to grow
Ridiculous and ignorant?
If you don't want to look at America through that lens, try India where nearly 20% of its population live in dire poverty, even though its economy is the fifth largest in the world. It's the same stupidity.
As for nuclear energy - it's nothing but a figleaf being grasped at by fossil fuel giants to delay taking up the much safer, affordable, and achievable full switch to renewable energy generation. Look at the loud voices shilling for it, and you will in every case you will find they are funded by coal and oil. The reason for that is that getting nuclear plants up and running in a way that would replace fossil energy production will take decades, and delay in ending that fossil energy production is exactly what the carbon industries want above all else.
Humans have demonstrated large scale nuclear generation is simply not something they can achieve without an unacceptable toll on the environment and populations.
"Being deprived of the ability to speak freely on a platform is censorship on the part of the people doing that."
Such a load of cobblers. It's as much censorship as me slamming the door in the face of people coming to my house to convert me to their cult.
"you feel “unsafe” and threatened by reading “hostile” words"
Remind me which political bent is so threatened by the mere existence of pronouns that they have to expends vast amounts of political will, money, and legislative time to banning them? And on seeking out and banning library and school books which acknowledge the mere existence of LGBT people? All lest they be offended in some very slight manner ill-befitting their incredibly privileged lives?
Tell me, which was the side which demanded that university officials be forced to resign for imperfect words defending the protection of First Amendment rights for students?
Which side is throwing an absolute shit fit right here over the suggestion that their disgusting, bigoted, ignorant, and unforgiveably dull commentary on LGBT people, Elon Musk, cops, and the rights of private site owners to do as they bloody well please with the server space they have paid for, are not in fact welcome everywhere they go and worse still, that no one else can be forced to read them?
I'll give you a hint. It's the same side that thinks Substack must host literal Nazis but – while screaming about their own First Amendment rights – insist it's fine for Substack to ban completely legal adult content and creators
Don't try to diagnose people on the internet, sweetie. It makes you look like a simpleton.
There is no way this isn't going to backfire on Amazon, especially where people are only interested in streaming choices. They are much more expensive than Disney+, yet their content is much worse, and consumers have a plethora of better choices.
Even YouTube Premium is a better deal because there is so much more and so much better content to be had ad free.
It's just going to make customers go 'yeah, nah', and find better things to do with their money.
Fortunately for me, I only have to take one inexpensive pill a day to keep me sane and happy.
Unfortunately for you, there isn't a drug on the planet which could make you into a decent human being.
yes, but that doesn't mean it's not possible it was malice. When dealing with Meta, it's always best to assume malice and stupidity
Kansas Reflector assessment of what happened
Facebook’s AI failure wiped out Kansas Reflector links. Even Facebook may not know what went wrong. https://kansasreflector.com/2024/04/11/facebooks-ai-failure-wiped-out-kansas-reflector-links-even-facebook-may-not-know-what-went-wrong/
I saw that lawyer's behaviour as utter desperation because his ability to defend Skum had run right up against Skum's inability to keep his big, uninformed yap shut, and he has nothing left in his armory except bluster and nonsense. Astonishingly unprofessional.
well, actually
Mike is writing negatively about Skum's lawyer. The sterilisation of 'mentally unfit' women went on in many countries and a hundred years before the internet was even a thing. I very much doubt you know a single fact about the real eugenics movement, including Elon's enthusiastic support for its principles. By all means, however, do keep posting drivel which will make people hope that, sterilised or not, you don't managed to pass on your brain worms to any unfortunate offspring of your own.
It's not too late, and it was a big enough fuck up that a proper apology and direct contact would have made a huge difference. The way Meta treated Marisa Kabas was beyond rude.
If you read the thread by Denise Mike linked in his post, she explains how that happens through the automated procedures.
Denise pointed out in that thread that WP 6.3 was exceptionally buggy and dangerous, but I still think the real trigger was a human false report of some kind. That doesn't mean the malice was coming from Meta, but the Reflector is in Kansas where the shenanigans around newspapers have been well documented right on this blog and elsewhere.
Denise (rahaeli) on Bluesky posted https://bsky.app/profile/rahaeli.bsky.social/post/3kpn6nyk5ok2i "Update to yesterday's thread on the "Meta blocking this story" incident: I have now actually gone to look at the details of the stack the Kansas Reflector, the site that originally posted it, is running. It's Wordpress 6.3 with a bunch of outdated plugins and widgets. This has moved the needle on my certainty that the "automated detection blocked the link as malicious" explanation is the correct explanation from 99.9% confidence to 99.999% confidence, and if the Reflector is smart, they will hire someone with forensic Wordpress security skills for an audit" There are a lot of outdated WP blogs out there though. Does Meta flag all of those as well?
Mike, why isn't it possible that someone at Meta decided to 'disappear' or limit the original Reflector article, and then the entire system just rolled on from that? Is it not possible that it's malice AND then the system acting as designed? I doubt it's Zuckerberg making that kind of decision, but is it impossible that a bad actor - even outside Meta - triggered this, through malicious reporting of spam or dangerous content?
Someone needs to ask the kind of people claiming this isn't rape whether being trapped in a small space with a much larger man and having one of his fingers shoved up their vulva or anus, is measurably less distressing than having his penis inserted in the same manner. In fact, I wish someone would ask von Clownstick that question. Or one of his idiot sons. Or Nancy Mace, for that matter.
Universal healthcare. Housing for all. Guaranteed basic income for all. Public utilities and infrastructure paid for by government. Oh, that's socialism, which is economic policy like capitalism, not communism which is a political system like democracy and one party rule. Perhaps you should name the communist policies you think are so harmful. I bet you can't tell which ones are actually communist, and which are socialist.
Keep my name out of your mouth, fuckhead. And stop twisting my words. The people who need bigoted garbage deleted from comment section are not the "most fragile/weak". They're the people whose rights are being attacked, not just by ignorant commenters, but by the rich and powerful in the society in which they live, who need protection and support. A decent society does not allow powerless innocents to be treated like shit and spoken about like they are worthless, just because a few morons have their panties in a knot over differences in how they want to live their lives. Allowing transphobic, homophobic, misogynistic or racist crap to be posted and then to remain on a site, diminishes the site and all those who read it without protesting its existence. It's harmful to the subjects and offensive to any right thinking person. If you imagine you have to be 'weak' or 'fragile' to be fiercely opposed to such viewpoints being splattered like diarrhoea, pretending to be reasonable dialogue, then there's something wrong with your moral compass.
"you can’t switch over to 100% renewable energy production for decades" The same is true of nuclear. So, since nuclear is much more expensive, and much more prone to catastrophe because of mismanagement or military attack, why not spend the time and money on renewables? A hostile country can take out a nuclear power plant in days. It would take a lot longer than that to destroy every solar roof installation, every windfarm, every hydro dam. The biggest argument for renewables is that the fossil fuel wankers don't want them. That means they see them as a real alternative and threat to their money making. So let's do what the bad actors don't want us to do, for a change.
Degrowth is ridiculous and ignorant? Really?
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-04412-x
You live in the richest country on earth where people can't afford basic health care and literally die because of that. You live in a country where a minute fraction of what you spend subsidising fossil fuels and the military industrial complex, could be used to ensure the health, housing, nutrition, and safety of every resident. And if half that expenditure was turned towards ending the use of fossil fuels and providing renewable energy, climate change could be halted, even reversed. Yet you call the idea that: Ridiculous and ignorant? If you don't want to look at America through that lens, try India where nearly 20% of its population live in dire poverty, even though its economy is the fifth largest in the world. It's the same stupidity. As for nuclear energy - it's nothing but a figleaf being grasped at by fossil fuel giants to delay taking up the much safer, affordable, and achievable full switch to renewable energy generation. Look at the loud voices shilling for it, and you will in every case you will find they are funded by coal and oil. The reason for that is that getting nuclear plants up and running in a way that would replace fossil energy production will take decades, and delay in ending that fossil energy production is exactly what the carbon industries want above all else. Humans have demonstrated large scale nuclear generation is simply not something they can achieve without an unacceptable toll on the environment and populations."Being deprived of the ability to speak freely on a platform is censorship on the part of the people doing that." Such a load of cobblers. It's as much censorship as me slamming the door in the face of people coming to my house to convert me to their cult.
I see that witticism took you some time to come up with. Perhaps use ChatGPT next time.
"you feel “unsafe” and threatened by reading “hostile” words" Remind me which political bent is so threatened by the mere existence of pronouns that they have to expends vast amounts of political will, money, and legislative time to banning them? And on seeking out and banning library and school books which acknowledge the mere existence of LGBT people? All lest they be offended in some very slight manner ill-befitting their incredibly privileged lives? Tell me, which was the side which demanded that university officials be forced to resign for imperfect words defending the protection of First Amendment rights for students? Which side is throwing an absolute shit fit right here over the suggestion that their disgusting, bigoted, ignorant, and unforgiveably dull commentary on LGBT people, Elon Musk, cops, and the rights of private site owners to do as they bloody well please with the server space they have paid for, are not in fact welcome everywhere they go and worse still, that no one else can be forced to read them? I'll give you a hint. It's the same side that thinks Substack must host literal Nazis but – while screaming about their own First Amendment rights – insist it's fine for Substack to ban completely legal adult content and creators Don't try to diagnose people on the internet, sweetie. It makes you look like a simpleton.
There is no way this isn't going to backfire on Amazon, especially where people are only interested in streaming choices. They are much more expensive than Disney+, yet their content is much worse, and consumers have a plethora of better choices. Even YouTube Premium is a better deal because there is so much more and so much better content to be had ad free. It's just going to make customers go 'yeah, nah', and find better things to do with their money.
Fortunately for me, I only have to take one inexpensive pill a day to keep me sane and happy. Unfortunately for you, there isn't a drug on the planet which could make you into a decent human being.
"the owner trespassed the people that owned the dog" You wanna try that sentence again?