The Facebook bubble just popped • Hacker News Board

Re: The Facebook bubble just popped

#171

Post by basseq » Thu, Nov 10, 2016, 6:48 PM UTC

Uehreka wrote: post #74

woodchuck64 wrote: post #15

Not just the left and right's echo-chambers, but those who attempt to actually listen to reality got it wrong, too: FiveThirtyEight for example has been using proven, reality-based statistics for a while and should have predicted this result. (As it was, Silver was lambasted for being too generous on Trump's chances.) At issue in this election is apparently a new idea: people who hold positions that are being publica…

A couple notes on FiveThirtyEight: First of all, yes, they got it wrong, in that they gave Clinton a higher chance of winning than Trump. They didn't give him a 0 chance, and a model that has 67%ish certainty should be "wrong" about 1 in 3 times. They were better than the other major forecasts, insofar as they gave Trump the highest chance of winning. I respect Nate Silver for his opposition to non-data-driven media…

  They were better than the other major forecasts, 
  insofar as they gave Trump the highest chance of 
  winning.

You might be interested in the LA Times / USC Daybreak poll, which projected a Trump win for some time. (And similarly, "caused dismay — even outrage — among some readers, especially Democrats, who have denounced it and often criticized The Times for running it".)

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-usc-latimes-poll-2...

Re: The Facebook bubble just popped

#172

Post by herbst » Thu, Nov 10, 2016, 6:50 PM UTC

vsgxvhdxh wrote: post #159

herbst wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"we" do that too, just not for these kind of news. Everytime i see some of the hardliners posting something political it will be completely ignored, or at max liked by some other hardliners. If someone posts a article about vegan or animal rights or shit, thats the kind of stuff that goes viral in my circles.

> vegan or animal rights I read that as vegan rights or animal rights...

according to my facebook feed vegans have rights too ;)

Re: The Facebook bubble just popped

#173

Post by rpeden » Thu, Nov 10, 2016, 6:51 PM UTC

downandout wrote: post #151

gdulli wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't have a college degree, and I don't consider myself a racist redneck. I don't know where you're getting this from.

You replied to a comment about how Tom Brokaw literally said on national TV that Trump voters were uneducated racist rednecks that watch Duck Dynasty. In that reply, you defended his position. That's where I'm getting it from.

Was there more to his quote than what you wrote above?

I've seen both shows, and it seems to me like he's saying this election was more about rural/middle America that it was about urban/coastal America, just based on the typical viewers of the shows.

To me, being from a rural area doesn't mean you're racist, or uneducated - even if you don't have a degree, there are plenty of other ways to learn, and also plenty of useful things to learn that aren't taught in any college.

But - I'm Canada, not the U.S., so although I get a ton of exposure to U.S. media up here, it's definitely possible I'm lacking some important bits of context that would help me understand better.

Re: The Facebook bubble just popped

#174

Post by ariwilson » Thu, Nov 10, 2016, 6:52 PM UTC

blahi wrote: post #98

ones_and_zeros wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is possible to win an election with only 22% of the popular vote. Have you seen this: http://www.cgpgrey.com/blog/the-trouble-with-the-electoral-c... Due to the way the electoral college gives small population states more electoral votes comparatively, votes in small population states have more weight.

Why do you ask him? YOu rehashed what he said, putting a negative spin on a very reasonable system. You can't have California drain the other states through economic superiority and then dictate political agenda on the population left in them. The political agenda benefiting California might not be suitable for Wisconsin.

Why not one person one vote? Are Californian voters less human than Rhode Island voters?

Re: The Facebook bubble just popped

#175

Post by helpfulanon » Thu, Nov 10, 2016, 6:55 PM UTC

talmand wrote: post #137

helpfulanon wrote: post #121

A popular uprising against Silicon Valley is coming. Already I hear it from people in my life, all over the country. They blame social media for allowing the Trump memes to warp people's opinion. They're starting to put the pieces together on unemployment and blame tech automation for taking jobs and not offering a replacement, especially in the heartland. They're angry with Silicon Valley execs for not putting up an…

Well, it's not just tech; it's any large corporation that gets coverage. Some people can only hear "we're making the world better" so much when by all appearances they are just making their own world better. I know it's not a fair assumption to make, but look at what gets reported (billion dollar companies that produce nothing with no profits, high level executives greatly rewarded for failure, and so on) versus the…

Certainly. But this is about information. There are a lot of people who increasingly understand the dynamics of how the information economy affects popular opinion, how it affects the workforce, how it has disrupted work and yet done nothing to solve the problems that came with the consequences of that disruption.

And many on the left outside of the valley bubble really thought that a boom in the left-leaning Bay Area meant that there were powerful people there who had their backs in all of this. They feel very hurt that tech seemed to sit on the sidelines through the election, and in some regards pretty much enabled and profited off the mass-dissemination of misinformation.

So it's not just about corporate greed this time. It's about information, disruption, workforce automation, and the responsibilities that come from building and wielding powerful information tools.

Re: The Facebook bubble just popped

#176

Post by smogcutter » Thu, Nov 10, 2016, 6:57 PM UTC

pluma wrote: post #123

protomyth wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Particularly nasty this time around with the amount of name calling and threats of violence[1]. I'm pretty sure any tech person who was for Trump shut the heck up after the whole Peter Thiel narrative. The amount of people who would rather act out than understand what is going on is a bit mind blowing. Of course, this is just a weird year when a third-party had a shot at the 5% and all of them sabotaged themselves by…

I'm not in the US and I was a bit taken aback when people on my Twitter timeline started calling for boycotts of a certain online sticker service entirely because the CEO came out on Twitter as supporting Trump a few weeks ago. I've only seen this form of complete isolation as part of feminist "no platform"-ing (basically: actively excluding speakers because of their political views, regardless of the topic of the co…

It's easy to underestimate how deeply polarized the US really is.

Trump in particular is so far out of the bounds of normal politics that to many people, support for Trump appears no different than support for, say, Mussolini. It may only be fringe extremists playing the racial supremacy song, but half the country is marching along to the beat. At that point it doesn't matter what your private reasons for supporting a Mussolini or Franco or Trump are - you're still a collaborator. The justification for boycotts etc comes from that point of view.

It's a difficult problem - the left (such as it is) needs to find some kind of productive path forward, but I'm not convinced that pandering to the sensitivities of people who have no intention to reciprocate is at all useful.

Re: The Facebook bubble just popped

#177

Post by jazzyk » Thu, Nov 10, 2016, 7:00 PM UTC

meritt wrote: post #101

misterbowfinger wrote: post #36

We're all definitely in an echo chamber. Hacker News is an echo chamber. So is Reddit, FB, Twitter, etc. This is what happens when, as an industry, we move towards "personalization". All of our "personalized" feeds allow businesses to increase their ad revenue, but it siphons us away from the rest of the world. 30 years ago, we were beholden to the large media outlets, which is also bad, but I believe we've overcorre…

HN is an echo chamber when it comes to tech choices, but it's absolutely not when it comes to politics. I've seen many pro-Trump supporters in the ranks here, which is very surprising given the demographic.

Why is it surprising?

I like to come up with my own conclusions, which may - or may not - be what my demographic group "expects" me to.

Re: The Facebook bubble just popped

#178

Post by blahi » Thu, Nov 10, 2016, 7:01 PM UTC

ariwilson wrote: post #174

blahi wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you ask him? YOu rehashed what he said, putting a negative spin on a very reasonable system. You can't have California drain the other states through economic superiority and then dictate political agenda on the population left in them. The political agenda benefiting California might not be suitable for Wisconsin.

Why not one person one vote? Are Californian voters less human than Rhode Island voters?

I already explained why. You just seem to refuse to see the reason.

Re: The Facebook bubble just popped

#179

Post by Nadya » Thu, Nov 10, 2016, 7:01 PM UTC

75j wrote: post #155

Nadya wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Let's all admit SJW has a clear, negative connotation. I mean, geez, it has a Wikipedia page: Many of them also own up to the term and use it to refer to themselves in a positive manner, even placing it in their Twitter bio's next to a link to their Patreon. Anyone who actually spends any amount of time in the political sphere where SJW run rampant is aware of this. Someone like myself uses it with the full negative…

> Anyone who actually spends any amount of time in the political sphere where SJW run rampant is aware of this. I have been reading up on politics or engaged in political discussion online for maybe ~4 hours daily for the past two years. I have never seen "SJW" used non-pejoratively, and I've never seen anyone own the term and apply it to themselves. Not saying you're wrong, but it's not nearly as common as you're pr…

When I have access to my bookmarks later today, I have no problem providing countless prominent individuals in the "SJW Sphere" to prove my point that they use it positively and someone less engaged could easily see it as a positive term.

>I have been reading up on politics or engaged in political discussion online for maybe ~4 hours daily for the past two years.

The exact opposite of not being politically engaged and having the few times you've seen the term be in a positive usage...

I've been actively against SJW's and every niche they try to get their grimy paws on for the past four to five years. Almost all of my political engagement has been contrary to SJW talking points - not because of what they argue for, but because of how they go about it.

I use it negatively and have no issue with saying I do. I'm around crowds that exclusively only use it negatively. I also see it used positively, or at least tongue-in-cheek all the time. If someone uses the term and claims they did not mean to use it with negative connotations - I believe their intentions.

I'm not pretending it is common. I'm declaring it can be, is used, was used, and has been used positively and neutrally and that people still do so. Prior to #GamerGate turning it into a slur the Wikipedia article even mentions it was a positive thing. It's very easy to not be actively aware of #GamerGate or TiA (TumblrInAction) and outside of those two bubbles you're not very likely to even run into the term "SJW".

sickbeard denies the intent and claims to have viewed it in a neutral, if even slightly positive, light. Arguing otherwise is dishonest and viewing things from your own viewpoint. Projecting intention where there is none. Ironically that is something people are sick of SJW's doing. And yes, I used it negatively there.

Re: The Facebook bubble just popped

#180

Post by FeatureRush » Thu, Nov 10, 2016, 7:02 PM UTC

webkike wrote: post #37

overcast wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Buahahahahaha, media outlets report news WITHOUT opinion? Welcome to Earth, outsider.

Besides the obvious empirical weight of your condescending dismissal I have yet to see any evidence that states it is impossible to report the news without an opinion. In fact, if you open the NYT you will find it divided into sections on opinion and factual news. Give me some evidence of main stream media reporting opinion with news. Give me a non-opinion piece newspaper article that has opinion.

how about this: some time ago when the news that tortures did not produce any valuable intel to counter terrorism was wildly reported in USA, the Polish media instead run a story about how terrorists were planning attacks in Poland during mayor holidays. See: no real opinion is conveyed here explicitly, but by controlling which and when facts get reported you get the same result as directly stating the opinion (in this case defending the need for doing nasty things to fight terrorism).