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

151–160 of 215 posts

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

#151

Post by ImTalking »

lomnakkus wrote: post #135
ImTalking wrote: post #134

Does not Facebook get to decide it's own morality, just like anyone else?

I think you meant to say "[...] like any other legal person?", perhaps? :)

Why complicate it? Morality is upto the individual entity whether it is a person, or a business, or a govt-body. For example, I believe there are still 'dry' counties in the US. They have decided that a no-alcohol policy is the morality they want to have within their town. I say fine, and I can accept that or move or try to change it... totally up to me. And as long as their morality does not infringe upon my rights to have my own morality, and that is certainly the case with this Facebook example, then it's all good.

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

#152

Post by mabbo »

khattam wrote: post #122
mabbo wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There always another radio, newspaper, church. There's really only one Facebook, and it's now how you get essentially all of those things.

I REALLY hope that you are being sarcastic.

Honestly? I'm not. I personally browse a few news sites, hacker news, etc, but I'm in the minority.

Facebook is doing a very fine job of being the first place people hear about stuff happening. It's one website, and it will give you exactly the news you care about- big stories side by side with your friends' random musings. They've aggregated all information that a person cares about in one place, personalized, custom-fit, nothing you don't care about.

I'm not calling that a good thing, but I do think it's true.

There's a MacDonald's in every city in the planet, and it's literally killing us from how unhealthy it is, but good god I keep going back every now and then. Same idea as Facebook.

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

#153

Post by ImTalking »

RubyPinch wrote: post #149
ImTalking wrote: post #134

Does not Facebook get to decide it's own morality, just like anyone else?

Well, it can, but it does still make a weird line in the sand You can be naked for the following reasons: Breastfeeding, Satire, Comedy, Artistic (but only photos of art), educational, and surgery (but only reconstructive) but being naked because you didn't exactly have time to grab clothes while fleeing from being burnt up, is too far on the nudity scale?

But why do you get to question Facebook's idea of morality? If you don't like it, don't use the service. To question someone's morality solely due to it being different than yours is, bluntly, a waste of time.

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

#154

Post by Retra »

maxlybbert wrote: post #129
Swizec wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think many people use facebook to get their news and nowhere else. And yet enough people do that it's a real and recognized problem to the point that HN discusses it every couple of weeks. HN in itself being a similar echo chamber. People get news from what they look at. There's no such thing as "news". It's all eyeball based. The source with the most eyeballs is considered The News.

That reminds me of John Stewart telling people not to consider the "Daily Show" a real news show.

That is what you say when you're making a distinction between "editorial" content and "news." Jon Stewart was saying "My show is obviously editorial content, not fact-reporting objective journalism." As a way of objecting to other sources who claimed to be providing fact-reporting objective journalism when they were actually providing editorial content. AKA "Fox News" vs "Comedy Central."

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

#155

Post by gozur88 »

throwanem wrote: post #142
gozur88 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It takes integrity to defend a principle in lieu of doing the expedient thing of instilling a "zero tolerance" policy. If you start from the position that kind of content belongs on FB, then sure. But not of you don't. And I don't. >But I thought that all content is appropriate for all sites. Don't all people fit into size 36 jeans, like cheesecake, ride unicycles, and love to go hiking? I quite like your negate the…

You seem to have put a fair amount of effort into this declaration of principle and partisanship on behalf of an advertising company that wants to monetize everybody in the world. I hope it was worthwhile.

I have no doubt you can't understand why anyone would disagree with you, but maybe you can stretch a little, intellectually, and try to see other viewpoints.

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

#156

Post by throwanem »

gozur88 wrote: post #155
throwanem wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to have put a fair amount of effort into this declaration of principle and partisanship on behalf of an advertising company that wants to monetize everybody in the world. I hope it was worthwhile.

I have no doubt you can't understand why anyone would disagree with you, but maybe you can stretch a little, intellectually, and try to see other viewpoints.

I think I understand where you're coming from. It's possible I am wrong about that, and how would I really know? I don't think anything you've said is inaccurate, if that means anything. I do think that the organization you so capably defend is not worthy of your effort in so doing. But on reflection I'm not sure what purpose I thought I would serve in saying so.

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

#157

Post by jscardella »

Chinjut wrote: post #117
xupybd wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

We SHOULD be outraged at entities that, because they are purely out to make money, end up shaping the world in ways we'd rather it not be. That's a perfectly natural thing to be outraged by; that they are in fact incentivized to do the thing we are outraged by is just another thing to be outraged by!

This also applies to non-for-profit institutions such as the Wiki Foundation. Jimmy Wales is well known for censoring content. Any resource that is used by a huge percent of the human population for information is going to shape/reshape. We have to be vigilant.

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

#158

Post by PavlovsCat »

Between this and stuff like youtube's ideas of "advertiser-friendliness" [0][1] the major websites are shaping up (down?) to be so. freaking. spineless.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bn3-Q1lY7fU [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDwdBc0-uq8

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

#159

Post by greggman »

ImTalking wrote: post #153
RubyPinch wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, it can, but it does still make a weird line in the sand You can be naked for the following reasons: Breastfeeding, Satire, Comedy, Artistic (but only photos of art), educational, and surgery (but only reconstructive) but being naked because you didn't exactly have time to grab clothes while fleeing from being burnt up, is too far on the nudity scale?

But why do you get to question Facebook's idea of morality? If you don't like it, don't use the service. To question someone's morality solely due to it being different than yours is, bluntly, a waste of time.

I don't know if this is a good analogy but should the phone company be able to tell you what you can have conversations about? What makes FB different? Yes there are alternatives. There are also multiple phone companies.

I can guess some differences. FB conversations are semi-public, phone conversation are generally not. Except AFAIK except for ads you have to opt into most info in FB. To get news from this source you have to have joined/liked their group. So you opted in. Maybe some friend shares the post but you opted into friending them.

I'm not saying FB should or should not limit what you can post. Only that it's interesting to consider other examples. Why should the phone company not be allowed to ban certain topics but FB should?

Post reply on HN