Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

“Dear Mark. I am writing this to inform you that I shall not comply”

aftenposten.no

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 215 posts

Re: “Dear Mark. I am writing this to inform you that I shall not comply”

#61

Post by CM30 »

Vertrauen wrote: post #3

I wonder how monopolized publishing is these days. If you want to get the message out about something, how much are you at the mercy of a few distribution channels and how much do we have an open ecosystem that gives everybody equal rights? I am honestly not sure. How important is it to be on Facebook? On Twitter? On Reddit? On HN? Indexed by Google? Have connections to the Huffington Post? If you have something inte…

It certainly makes it a lot more difficult to get the message out about something without those channels. And if those forces don't like what you're saying, it becomes much harder to find for other people.

Popularity depends a lot on your marketing skills too. If you can 'figure out' the secret to success on social media sites, or how to get your site's SEO to be good, that helps a lot more than the quality of the work at the moment. Unfortunately.

Not sure if you can make interesting, helpful content spread no matter what. Seems like it could be a challenge to have any system to find interesting content that isn't dependant on any third party services or search engines. And even more of a challenge to get people to use it.

Re: “Dear Mark. I am writing this to inform you that I shall not comply”

#62

Post by dredmorbius »

davesque wrote: post #9
howeyc wrote: post #6

Facebook removes post. The fact that other people believe this post should stay (for whatever reason) is immaterial. It's not their site. Water is wet, news at 11.

The author of the article is asking whether or not it is good that one of the world's main channels of information is controlled by a large company that can and does do whatever it wants with the information. Once a company becomes large enough and controls enough of our lives, the fact that it technically can do whatever it wants becomes "immaterial" as you say. That makes this story more significant than just "wate…

I suspect "immaterial", un-negated, isn't quite the meaning you're intending. Or you're being unclear.

Re: “Dear Mark. I am writing this to inform you that I shall not comply”

#63

Post by jawbone3 »

robryan wrote: post #52
mavrc wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wrong. Facebook is for making money. I know you're not wrong here, but at what point does social responsibility trump profit? Should it?

Basically only when the law says that something is illegal.

Ah yes, and its not like what the law labels illegal ever changes, especially not when people are upset about something legal...

Re: “Dear Mark. I am writing this to inform you that I shall not comply”

#64

Post by xg15 »

xupybd wrote: post #24
hiddenkrypt wrote: post #13

> "Facebook is for the pleasure and benefit of the whole world, myself included, on a number of levels." Wrong. Facebook is for making money. If providing users with pleasure or benefits makes them money, then that's lucky for the users. > "Facebook has become a world-leading platform for spreading information, for debate and for social contact between persons. You have gained this position because you deserve it." A…

I don't know if I agree with the outrage at Facebook. They are out to make money. They can make more money if they avoid controversy and keep their site a place that brands like to be associated with. It results in corporate censorship for sure, but is it Facebook's responsibility to provide a censorship free platform? I fully agree with people taking note and becoming aware that Facebook is simply a business providi…

This is mostly true, but IMO ignores:

a) the network effects that make people join the network even if they wouldn't want to on their own

b) Facebook's own agressive strategies of bringing users into their network without conscious choice - e.g. the acquisition of whatsapp or the internet.org initiative.

At this point it's more like some property shark who'd buy up half the city's apartment blocks, then proceed to cut services and raise the rents - and when people complain, respond "well, for some reason all those people chose to rent my apartments, so they must approve of what I do"...

Re: “Dear Mark. I am writing this to inform you that I shall not comply”

#65

Post by ranko »

robryan wrote: post #52
mavrc wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wrong. Facebook is for making money. I know you're not wrong here, but at what point does social responsibility trump profit? Should it?

Basically only when the law says that something is illegal.

Taking a very narrow legal view, you're correct. Surely, however, we can make more sophisticated judgements than "legally it's OK, therefore morally it's OK".

Re: “Dear Mark. I am writing this to inform you that I shall not comply”

#67

Post by mixedCase »

lake99 wrote: post #48
mixedCase wrote: post #21

Well that's funny. I cannot find the picture anywhere. I even tried disabling uBlock and then was promptly reminded of why I use it.

For me, it was HTTPS Everywhere that was causing the problem. Disabling it showed me the pictures.

That was it. I wish Google would start with the red alerts already so webmaster may start getting their shit together.

Re: “Dear Mark. I am writing this to inform you that I shall not comply”

#68

Post by the8472 »

CaptSpify wrote: post #55
Miner49er wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One solution is to not remove anything until told to do so by law enforcement. If people don't like what's posted they can choose to not view it.

I really don't get why sites don't think this way. If you take the hands-off route, you can deflect a lot of criticism: "We don't endorse it, we just let people post what they want". But as soon as you censor, or curate, or promote one item/subject, you become responsible for everything else on your site. Why add extra load on yourself?

Or you could even let them tag content as inappropriate for those who only want to see fluffy bunnies and have an "give me an unfiltered view" option for everyone else.

Re: “Dear Mark. I am writing this to inform you that I shall not comply”

#69

Post by ksk »

typeiierror wrote: post #37

Sometimes I wonder that when we shower criticism on Facebook about privacy concerns, we're missing the forest for the trees. The bigger issue I see is the sheer amount of eyeballs trained exclusively to Facebook's content. What does it mean for society when Facebook can demote a challenging but important article (say, of war reporting) in your newsfeed so it can promote your friend's Wedding photos, because an algori…

>because an algorithm says that challenging articles cause people to leave FB, reducing page views and ad revenue?

I don't quite get how that is any different from a TV news station or a newspaper coming to the same conclusion?

Re: “Dear Mark. I am writing this to inform you that I shall not comply”

#70

Post by schoen »

typeiierror wrote: post #37

Sometimes I wonder that when we shower criticism on Facebook about privacy concerns, we're missing the forest for the trees. The bigger issue I see is the sheer amount of eyeballs trained exclusively to Facebook's content. What does it mean for society when Facebook can demote a challenging but important article (say, of war reporting) in your newsfeed so it can promote your friend's Wedding photos, because an algori…

> What does it mean for society when Facebook can demote a challenging but important article (say, of war reporting) in your newsfeed so it can promote your friend's Wedding photos, because an algorithm says that challenging articles cause people to leave FB, reducing page views and ad revenue?

Couldn't a newspaper that uses algorithmic metrics (or any kind of metrics or surveying) end up making a similar editorial decision for similar reasons? Journalists have worried about independence of editorial and advertising for somewhat analogous kinds of reason for a long time, and also about whether their news outlets were doing the most important journalism vs. journalism with the greatest mass appeal.

Post reply on HN