Facebook down

[Bigguy]

Been down since around 10:30 am Oct 4. Comments on the Downdetector site mention the 60 minutes whistle blower interview.

78006 (https://downdetector.com/status/facebook/)

[GearFondler]

Nice to know it wasn't just my phone.

[Jim Watson]

Instagram, too. 1:12pm CDT

[LittleLebowski]

Darn.

[Elkhitman]

I got Zucked back in July for a Rittenhouse meme from July 2020. It was a useful tool for information, but it became to time consuming.

[Default.mp3]

A haiku:

It's not DNS.
There's no way it's DNS.
It was DNS.

[donlapalma]

Whatsapp down as well.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[fly out]

Couldn't have happened to a nicer lizard person.

[cheby]

Finally, some good news for a change!

[Clusterfrack]

Finally, some good news for a change!

Yes. This makes me happy. Maybe it will stay down permanently.

[Bigguy]

Starting to be reported on major news platforms.
USA today (https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2021/10/04/facebook-instagram-outage-whatsapp-down-october-2021/5991289001/).

[blues]

Yes. This makes me happy. Maybe it will stay down permanently.

Amen.

[Stephanie B]

Maybe Zuck has realized that FB is never going to help him get laid.

[Tabasco]

A haiku:

It's not DNS.
There's no way it's DNS.
It was DNS.

Maybe more than DNS. Reporter from NYT reports employee badge readers not working:

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/facebook-instagram-whatsapp-experience-global-outages

[RJ]

Thanks. My wife reported an issue on her new Ipad Mini 6 an hour ago. I've been trying to figure it out ever since lol. Glad it wasn't me. :)

[Erik]

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/647445387401232394/894689029398876241/Image-1.jpeg

[Guerrero]

The Machine Stops (https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/the-machine-stops/)

[hiro]

Boomer vindication, meet millennial anxiety

[Welder]

I hooked my ground up to FB's server and then welded on a handrail on the other side of the building. Sorry everybody.

Hope you enjoyed your break from having to hear a bunch of people whining about their first world problems. :p

[OlongJohnson]

I've seen the result when someone clamped his ground on the control arm of a front suspension and then plasma cut elsewhere on the chassis. Stainless steel braided brake lines aren't meant to be used as welding cable. Just sayin'.

[Screwball]

Only thing I miss is the group for my agency’s anti-vaccination people. I have the vaccine, and probably will be coming up for a booster… but trying to keep those that don’t want it informed the best I can (just became a rep for the union that isn’t doing a damn thing for them [emoji107]).

And then the few people I talk to on FB Messenger and WhatsApp (didn’t know FB owned that one).

[Welder]

I've seen the result when someone clamped his ground on the control arm of a front suspension and then plasma cut elsewhere on the chassis. Stainless steel braided brake lines aren't meant to be used as welding cable. Just sayin'.

But but but I'm sure they disconnected the battery so it's all good :D

My job category keeps electricians, insurance agencies, and firefighters in business.

[Wondering Beard]

From America's newspaper of record.
Hackers Warn That If Demands Aren’t Met They Will Reactivate Facebook (https://babylonbee.com/news/hackers-warn-that-if-demands-arent-met-they-will-reactivate-facebook)

[Borderland]

But but but I'm sure they disconnected the battery so it's all good :D

My job category keeps electricians, insurance agencies, and firefighters in business.

You're a piker compared to PG&E. No offense intended. ;)

[TAZ]

From America's newspaper of record.
Hackers Warn That If Demands Aren’t Met They Will Reactivate Facebook (https://babylonbee.com/news/hackers-warn-that-if-demands-arent-met-they-will-reactivate-facebook)

Give them whatever they want.

[frozentundra]

But but but I'm sure they disconnected the battery so it's all good :D

My job category keeps electricians, insurance agencies, and firefighters in business.

I was working a millwright job building a giant automated feed mill some years back. Everything in those places must be grounded together to mitigate the threat of grain dust explosions. One of the guys started welding on one of the giant hanging grain sales bellow the elevators while grounded to a nearby beam. Unfortunately that scale hadn't yet been grounded to the main structure. He roasted an unbelievable amount of wires that controlled pneumatic gate actuators above the scales. The look on his face when we stopped him was memorable.

[Bigguy]

I was working a millwright job building a giant automated feed mill some years back. Everything in those places must be grounded together to mitigate the threat of grain dust explosions. One of the guys started welding on one of the giant hanging grain sales bellow the elevators while grounded to a nearby beam. Unfortunately that scale hadn't yet been grounded to the main structure. He roasted an unbelievable amount of wires that controlled pneumatic gate actuators above the scales. The look on his face when we stopped him was memorable.

I worked at a grain elevator every summer throughout college. Then became the Dept. head for IT at a news paper. Seems I've spent my whole live in fear of static electricity.

[Sig_Fiend]

78038

[RevolverRob]

Though I scroll a lot of Instagram; I would not shed a tear if FB, IG, Twitter, and every 24-hour news channel went down...forever.

Realistically, I could get all my internet life out of P-F and Wikipedia.

[Wondering Beard]

Give them whatever they want.

Sadly: In Major Disaster For Humanity, Facebook Comes Back Online (https://babylonbee.com/news/in-major-disaster-for-humanity-facebook-comes-back-online)

[Chance]

That was evidently a much larger problem than DNS. Folks are still digging through the wreckage, but apparently Facebook misconfigured the routers that carry traffic between their datacenters, which had the effect of basically wiping the company off the Internet for a few hours. For a company that's synonymous with "the Internet", that's about as bad of an oopsie as you can get.

[Guerrero]

The conspiracy theories say it was to prevent Facebook/Instagram/Whatsapp users from discussing the "60 Minutes" interview.

[Borderland]

The conspiracy theories say it was to prevent Facebook/Instagram/Whatsapp users from discussing the "60 Minutes" interview.

I'll go with that one. ;)

[cheby]

The conspiracy theories say it was to prevent Facebook/Instagram/Whatsapp users from discussing the "60 Minutes" interview.

I am not too excited about the whistle-blower. It is an organized campaign to attack "misinformation" meaning everything that deviates from the party line and not controled by the "editorial boards"

[Guerrero]

I am not too excited about the whistle-blower. It is an organized campaign to attack "misinformation" meaning everything that deviates from the party line and not controled by the "editorial boards"

This. However, it's a mixed bag, as the whistleblower also discussed how Instagram knew that it negatively affects teen girls, but put $ over the girls.


Still not regretting our family's decision not to social media.

[cheby]

This. However, it's a mixed bag, as the whistleblower also discussed how Instagram knew that it negatively affects teen girls, but put $ over the girls.


Still not regretting our family's decision not to social media.

Agree. I also think that the teen girls issue could be an effective tool and leverage to force FB to do what they are told and further outsource control over the 1st amendment to private corporations.

[Sig_Fiend]

I am not too excited about the whistle-blower. It is an organized campaign to attack "misinformation" meaning everything that deviates from the party line and not controled by the "editorial boards"

I find it quite telling that, whistleblower after whistleblower leaks to an organization like Project Veritas, often providing technical implementation details and/or video footage, and seems to be relatively ignored in Congress. Now this latest FB whistleblower, who is clearly a leftist that seems to want MORE censorship, comes out and within a day or two gets a Senate hearing. Yeah okay. LOL These fools are so transparent it's not even funny.

[cheby]

I find it quite telling that, whistleblower after whistleblower leaks to an organization like Project Veritas, often providing technical implementation details and/or video footage, and seems to be relatively ignored in Congress. Now this latest FB whistleblower, who is clearly a leftist that seems to want MORE censorship, comes out and within a day or two gets a Senate hearing. Yeah okay. LOL These fools are so transparent it's not even funny.
Exactly!
https://www.dailywire.com/news/facebook-whistleblower-leftist-activist-lawyer-ukraine-impeachment

[Balisong]

Exactly!
https://www.dailywire.com/news/facebook-whistleblower-leftist-activist-lawyer-ukraine-impeachment

Dolph Lundgren in a wig!?!

[cheby]

Dolph Lundgren in a wig!?!

Lol

[cheby]

here we go:
https://rumble.com/vncosj-msnbcs-wallace-calls-to-censor-facebook-it-is-the-most-damaging-influence-i.html?mref=6zof&mc=dgip3&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Dinesh+D%27Souza&ep=2

I have to admit, it feels weird to defend FB

[Borderland]

I just wish they would give Trump back his twitter account. That seems so unfair.

[cheby]

I just wish they would give Trump back his twitter account. That seems so unfair.
It used to be a liberal value.... still is
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

[OlongJohnson]

Dolph Lundgren in a wig!?!

78069

[Borderland]

It used to be a liberal value.... still is
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

Most here know I don't support Trump. But Jeez, when they axed his twitter it was like they cut his tongue out. ;)

[4RNR]

Never understood the point of FB so never used it. Still don't get why people can't do without it

Sent from my moto z4 using Tapatalk

[DDTSGM]

Late, but I thought this was funny:

78082

[jh9]

I just wish they would give Trump back his twitter account. That seems so unfair.

It isn't "his" twitter account, though. It's twitters. They have a ToS like everywhere. Start talking about selling drugs or selling guns across state lines without an FFL here and see how long that stands. You can spend five minutes googling to see the years-long list of violations he racked up. It was even a meme at one point where people were creating accounts that did nothing but tweet the exact same thing he did and got banned within hours.

This bizarre notion that you have an unlimited right to say whatever you want not only without consequence but other people or companies are somehow obligated to give you a platform to say it has nothing to do with the First Amendment. That's not how any of this works. Slander, libel, "fire in a crowded theater", etc didn't go away. Speech is not unlimited and sometimes has consequences, even outside the private sector where nobody is obligated to let you do anything.

Honestly twitter didn't go far enough. They should have banned everyones' accounts and shut the service down. Do the same to facebook, instagram and every other social media sewer and we'll be making some real progress. The worst part of this story is that facebook is back up.

[Borderland]

It isn't "his" twitter account, though. It's twitters. They have a ToS like everywhere. Start talking about selling drugs or selling guns across state lines without an FFL here and see how long that stands. You can spend five minutes googling to see the years-long list of violations he racked up. It was even a meme at one point where people were creating accounts that did nothing but tweet the exact same thing he did and got banned within hours.

This bizarre notion that you have an unlimited right to say whatever you want not only without consequence but other people or companies are somehow obligated to give you a platform to say it has nothing to do with the First Amendment. That's not how any of this works. Slander, libel, "fire in a crowded theater", etc didn't go away. Speech is not unlimited and sometimes has consequences, even outside the private sector where nobody is obligated to let you do anything.

Honestly twitter didn't go far enough. They should have banned everyones' accounts and shut the service down. Do the same to facebook, instagram and every other social media sewer and we'll be making some real progress. The worst part of this story is that facebook is back up.

I was joking. I just forgot the :rolleyes: Honestly, I don't care what happens to Trump and his twitter account. I don't have a twitter acct. nor do I use FB or Instagram. Hell, I don't even text on my phone. I would but it's a flip phone without a touch screen and I don't see any reason to upgrade.

[NEPAKevin]

1445846292760907778

[JRB]

It isn't "his" twitter account, though. It's twitters. They have a ToS like everywhere. Start talking about selling drugs or selling guns across state lines without an FFL here and see how long that stands. You can spend five minutes googling to see the years-long list of violations he racked up. It was even a meme at one point where people were creating accounts that did nothing but tweet the exact same thing he did and got banned within hours.

This bizarre notion that you have an unlimited right to say whatever you want not only without consequence but other people or companies are somehow obligated to give you a platform to say it has nothing to do with the First Amendment. That's not how any of this works. Slander, libel, "fire in a crowded theater", etc didn't go away. Speech is not unlimited and sometimes has consequences, even outside the private sector where nobody is obligated to let you do anything.

Honestly twitter didn't go far enough. They should have banned everyones' accounts and shut the service down. Do the same to facebook, instagram and every other social media sewer and we'll be making some real progress. The worst part of this story is that facebook is back up.

All of that is fine, but when Twitter (and many other flavors of social media) won't even temp-ban users from the myriad of straight up terrorist organizations in the middle east, who enjoy openly posting videos of abhorrent violence to civilian women and kids, or openly posting the executions of prisoners, pushing their myriad of 'death to everyone that isn't like us' hate speech... you lost me.

[jh9]

All of that is fine

Glad you agree then.

[JRB]

Glad you agree then.

Classy.

Specifically, I agree on the principle being fair if it was fairly and impartially enforced across all users.
Hiding behind a 'principle' or ToS or whatever as they arbitrarily support/protect/push clearly biased political goals is bullshit.

It goes beyond bullshit when then-President Trump's rants are 'literally violence' but executing caged prisoners with improvised flamethrowers doesn't catch a ban - it's a fucking straight-up lie that proves their ToS is simply a tool to be used against whatever stuff they don't like and nothing more.

[jh9]

Classy.

Specifically, I agree on the principle being fair if it was fairly and impartially enforced across all users.
Hiding behind a 'principle' or ToS or whatever as they arbitrarily support/protect/push clearly biased political goals is bullshit.

It goes beyond bullshit when then-President Trump's rants are 'literally violence' but executing caged prisoners with improvised flamethrowers doesn't catch a ban - it's a fucking straight-up lie that proves their ToS is simply a tool to be used against whatever stuff they don't like and nothing more.

Couple things

1) Every website and moderator on the internet is politically biased. It's reality. That twitter's shit mods are not in line with your beliefs doesn't suddenly make it an outrage. I have other problems with twitter, which I mostly solve by not using twitter.

2) I'm pretty sure they do eventually get around to deleting the beheading and other videos you were complaining about in your previous post. But it's a human-in-the-loop system and they have millions (or whatever) of tweets per day.

[Stephanie B]

Classy.

Specifically, I agree on the principle being fair if it was fairly and impartially enforced across all users.
Hiding behind a 'principle' or ToS or whatever as they arbitrarily support/protect/push clearly biased political goals is bullshit.

It goes beyond bullshit when then-President Trump's rants are 'literally violence' but executing caged prisoners with improvised flamethrowers doesn't catch a ban - it's a fucking straight-up lie that proves their ToS is simply a tool to be used against whatever stuff they don't like and nothing more.

That's all fine, but it is their service to run as they see fit. Nobody, so far as I know, pays to use it. If people use it, they get exposed to the ads, which is how Twitter and FB make their money.

If you don't like it, don't use it.

Frankly, those screaming about how being kicked off Twitter is a violation of their rights are, in my opinion, idiots and or spoiled brats. They have a right to stand on a soapbox in the public square and say what they want (within civilized limits). They don't have a right to force the local TV station to film and air their rantings.

Those who don't like being booted off Twitter are free to set up a competing platform. (The guy you mentioned has the money to do so, unless he's not as rich as he says that he is.)

[cheby]

They have a right to stand on a soapbox in the public square and say what they want (within civilized limits). They don't have a right to force the local TV station to film and air their rantings.

This is a straw man argument. TV stations and newspapers do not have Section 230 protection.

[jh9]

TV stations and newspapers do not have Section 230 protection.

Which is interesting because if they didn't they'd moderate much more heavily. The results might not be what you think (https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-crowdtangle-data-top-posts-conservative-outlets-2020-7?op=1).

I'm on board with revoking any sort of "Section 230 protection" facetwit and the like have, btw. If they want to be an outlet that is constantly broadcasting a handful of nutjobs spouting ivermectin nonsense let them carry the legal liability that goes along with that when it gets people sick or killed.

OTOH, "internet companies" and "social media" are terms that could apply to web fora like pistol-forum.com and that could make running the place considerably more expensive. Which would not be ideal. So this "Section 230" thing everyone is rolling around in their minds... be careful what you wish for. Depending on the wording of any forthcoming legislation on the topic you might be losing more than you gain.

[cheby]

Which is interesting because if they didn't they'd moderate much more heavily. The results might not be what you think (https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-crowdtangle-data-top-posts-conservative-outlets-2020-7?op=1).

.

This is actually why this current attack on FB is taking place.

If you are okay with social media and other private corporations restricting the free speech of people you do not like, think who else will they ban in the future? They support all kinds of regimes all around the world. https://thehill.com/policy/technology/572726-apple-google-remove-navalny-app-as-russian-elections-begin

[peterb]

If you are okay with social media and other private corporations restricting the free speech of people you do not like, think who else will they ban in the future? They support all kinds of regimes all around the world. https://thehill.com/policy/technology/572726-apple-google-remove-navalny-app-as-russian-elections-begin

Social media “free speech” is only “free” because that’s the vendor’s business model. They built the platform, we collectively enabled and monetized it it by using it. Nobody has a “right” to have their particular message amplified.

I agree that the big social media platforms have become frighteningly powerful, but it’s not an issue of “free speech”.

[Stephanie B]

This is a straw man argument. TV stations and newspapers do not have Section 230 protection.

Which, as far as I can tell, is irrelevant to the issue of when First Amendment protections attach.

[Sig_Fiend]

OTOH, "internet companies" and "social media" are terms that could apply to web fora like pistol-forum.com and that could make running the place considerably more expensive. Which would not be ideal. So this "Section 230" thing everyone is rolling around in their minds... be careful what you wish for. Depending on the wording of any forthcoming legislation on the topic you might be losing more than you gain.

I wanted to quote this because I think it's important for us all to consider. What we need is proper, non-partisan, application of existing law, which is sorely lacking right now. More laws and regulations on the internet will probably only be to our detriment.

We can see exactly that from this latest FB "whistleblower" (clearly a leftist radical). It is quite transparent by the speed at which she was thrust into the media spotlight, testified before congress, as well as the nature of some of the testimony. Not much of anything actually new that we didn't already know. Lots of second-hand knowledge. Other whistleblowers with more intimate knowledge, and experience with actual implementation details, have not been courted nearly to the same degree. Clearly the intent is to start the conversation and work towards codifying the "moderation" into law in the guise of protecting us from wrongthink. Just think about what Zuckerberg previously said in Congress; something to the effect of, "YES, please regulate us. We need help!" That should really make a person take a step back and think about what's really going on. More "help" in the form of regulation means increased cost and difficulty for competition. Of course corporate elites would be all for that, because they can easily throw a few hundred million at problems like that and get by just fine. You (anyone) and I can't afford to compete with that.

I'm no lawyer. What I've heard in some circles is that a "better" approach to fighting back against the manner in which some of the unethical moderation has been implemented is probably in the realm of lawsuits in relation to "false advertising". Makes sense to me. Ambiguous rules applied inconsistently and unequally directed at certain demographics. Also, yanking the rug out from under individuals and businesses making a living on platforms, providing vague reasoning, few or ambiguous options to rectify... I mean no one on any side of the political spectrum can honestly think those are acceptable business practices. If a platform is going to be partisan, they should be up front about it, and that's certainly their right.

I think the best thing each of us can do individually is to stop being the product and stop participating with some of these platforms. Your data = money, so vote with your wallets and encourage your friends and family to do the same. When other, less partisan options come along (and they are, slowly), give them your support if they offer a better product. Oh, you know, like maybe becoming a PF subscriber for example! ;)

Also, on this subject I'm sure at some point the topic of Parler will come up. That's an example, in some ways. Though... probably NOT the "droids you are looking for". Let me explain. Any platform associated with the right (whether true or not) happens to be a huge target right now for exploitation and data exfiltration. It's unfortunate, but that's the reality. Independent platforms like that, IMO, need to have a particularly ruthless focus on security and privacy. Based on everything I've seen from Parler, for example, they have not demonstrated that. Frankly, after what's happened with that company and the junior-level vulnerability that allowed mass export of user data... they have a LOT to prove to deserve people's trust again. So far, nothing from them that I've seen has demonstrated that. They should have an absolutely massive marketing campaign across all media formats and other platforms talking about privacy, security, all of the steps they're taking to build secure processes (because it's an ongoing process and not an end state), the security researchers they've hired.... I'm sure you get my point. To date, I haven't seen any of that from them, and I have actually looked out of curiosity.

[HCM]

78199

[JRB]

That's all fine, but it is their service to run as they see fit. Nobody, so far as I know, pays to use it. If people use it, they get exposed to the ads, which is how Twitter and FB make their money.

If you don't like it, don't use it.

Frankly, those screaming about how being kicked off Twitter is a violation of their rights are, in my opinion, idiots and or spoiled brats. They have a right to stand on a soapbox in the public square and say what they want (within civilized limits). They don't have a right to force the local TV station to film and air their rantings.

Those who don't like being booted off Twitter are free to set up a competing platform. (The guy you mentioned has the money to do so, unless he's not as rich as he says that he is.)

If their ToS was simply 'We'll ban whoever we feel like for posting stuff we don't like and you can suck it up or fuck off to another platform' then what you're saying would 100% jive here.

When they selectively enforce or don't enforce their own ToS, *especially* when there's clear political alignment involved in that selective enforcement - they're being underhanded fucking liars and shouldn't be trusted at face value for anything they say or do, and they're all a bunch of hypocrites.

At some threshold of user base/use/etc, there needs to be accountability to their own rules if they want to keep enjoying section 230 protection. Otherwise they should not have section 230 protection.

[Stephanie B]

If their ToS was simply 'We'll ban whoever we feel like for posting stuff we don't like and you can suck it up or fuck off to another platform' then what you're saying would 100% jive here.

When they selectively enforce or don't enforce their own ToS, *especially* when there's clear political alignment involved in that selective enforcement - they're being underhanded fucking liars and shouldn't be trusted at face value for anything they say or do, and they're all a bunch of hypocrites.

At some threshold of user base/use/etc, there needs to be accountability to their own rules if they want to keep enjoying section 230 protection. Otherwise they should not have section 230 protection.

Fine, but here is my question: If people are going to regard the ToS from any company as a contract, then what is the consideration for the contract?

"This is our service, you can use it for free, but these are our rules, which we can change whenever we want and maybe we won't enforce them against everyone all of the time."

Maybe my understanding of contract law is lacking, but I don't see a quantifiable consideration being exchanged.

[HeavyDuty]

Fine, but here is my question: If people are going to regard the ToS from any company as a contract, then what is the consideration for the contract?

"This is our service, you can use it for free, but these are our rules, which we can change whenever we want and maybe we won't enforce them against everyone all of the time."

Maybe my understanding of contract law is lacking, but I don't see a quantifiable consideration being exchanged.

Could monetization of the user’s personal data for advertising count?

[JRB]

Fine, but here is my question: If people are going to regard the ToS from any company as a contract, then what is the consideration for the contract?

"This is our service, you can use it for free, but these are our rules, which we can change whenever we want and maybe we won't enforce them against everyone all of the time."

Maybe my understanding of contract law is lacking, but I don't see a quantifiable consideration being exchanged.

I'm a barely functional retard of an NCO and wrench-turner, and every time something takes a right turn into legalese like this I know better than to pretend I know what I'm talking about.

But it just seems completely wrong that a social media platform is somehow exempt accountability for outright bias/bigotry/hypocrisy in the application of their own damn rules just because 'you can just stop using it'.

I can't think of a single media or goods or service industry or business that enjoys the same autonomy to do whatever the hell they want.

[Wondering Beard]

Fine, but here is my question: If people are going to regard the ToS from any company as a contract, then what is the consideration for the contract?

"This is our service, you can use it for free, but these are our rules, which we can change whenever we want and maybe we won't enforce them against everyone all of the time."

Maybe my understanding of contract law is lacking, but I don't see a quantifiable consideration being exchanged.

Contract law never was my forte and I'm just a law school grad, but I could see the argument made that accepting the use of one's personal information for whatever Twitter decides could be considered the consideration, though I would imagine it needs to be put very clearly in the contract.