Live data from Hacker News

Facebook Faces a New World as Officials Rein in a Wild Web

nytimes.com

81–90 of 112 posts

Re: Facebook Faces a New World as Officials Rein in a Wild Web

#81
post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The wild Internet is definitely still there. The problem is that it got too hostile for most users due to spam, viruses, malware, phishing, trolls, doxing, and so on. It will get worse, as attackers adopt machine learning techniques and automate social engineering at scale. So users have a problem. Companies that solved it the right way became enormous, because protection from all that crap is something people want,…

> The wild Internet is definitely still there. It was there before Eternal September. And yes, it's still there, and far richer than it's ever been. > The problem is that it got too hostile for most users due to spam, viruses, malware, phishing, trolls, doxing, and so on. It's arguably those mainstream users who are problematic. In large part, they're the trolls. And the ones who are trolled, of course. And they're t…

> It's arguably those mainstream users who are problematic

That sounds a bit ignorant. Those mainstream users are the vast majority, they make a lot of internet business models worthwhile and made the internet the success that it is. Of course they also attract sharks as you rightfully say, but we should try to improve their experiences instead of denying them any sense or intelligence and putting them in walled gardens.

Re: Facebook Faces a New World as Officials Rein in a Wild Web

#82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Washington Post all the way. I still read it, but NYT often disappoints me when I already know something about the subject. New Yorker is good, but not science sections. The NYT Cassini coverage was good. edit: I mistakenly put Wash Times. Yehowa.

Yeah I still think the NYT has the best science coverage out there, but business and tech has become such a joke over the past 20 years it's not even worth checking.

I wonder if scientists reading NYT articles that cover their own fields think the same.

Re: Facebook Faces a New World as Officials Rein in a Wild Web

#83
post #81
post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The wild Internet is definitely still there. It was there before Eternal September. And yes, it's still there, and far richer than it's ever been. > The problem is that it got too hostile for most users due to spam, viruses, malware, phishing, trolls, doxing, and so on. It's arguably those mainstream users who are problematic. In large part, they're the trolls. And the ones who are trolled, of course. And they're t…

> It's arguably those mainstream users who are problematic That sounds a bit ignorant. Those mainstream users are the vast majority, they make a lot of internet business models worthwhile and made the internet the success that it is. Of course they also attract sharks as you rightfully say, but we should try to improve their experiences instead of denying them any sense or intelligence and putting them in walled gard…

> internet business models

Many idealists considered that a ridiculous idea.

Re: Facebook Faces a New World as Officials Rein in a Wild Web

#84
post #29

Facebook is most likely a net negative in this world. I don't know if it's always been true, but I think it is now. I personally didn't realize how strong my feelings were until one of their recruiters contacted me. I'm far from a 'values' driven employee, but this was by far the easiest refusal of my career.

True thing. A friend of friend was banned from facebook for 7 days just because he posted anti government thing. This happened in India!

Re: Facebook Faces a New World as Officials Rein in a Wild Web

#85
post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At least this should ring a bell to all those who still think they can write anything on FB about a Government and get away with it. They should be able to. Free speech is a human right. FB should not be helping governments violate human rights. > This reiterates the capitalist world that we live in where Democracy is just a myth. Those are two different things.

> Free speech is a human right. FB should not be helping governments violate human rights. I think it is usually framed in as a human right against government intervention. That is the government can't shut you up if you want to criticize it. However FB is not the government. FB can stop and censor people because it is a private entity. Nobody has a right to use FB's resources (server time, bandwidth) for free to say…

This is exactly what is happening. The guardian article talked about an arrest made for a anti govt post. FB is being used for these purposes.

Re: Facebook Faces a New World as Officials Rein in a Wild Web

#86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was there really such a NEED for fb to exist that it was inevitable?!

I think so; not because it is so great but because it's more 'cheap tv' for people. Just stare at videos and how great your 'friends' are doing. Hype yourself up and feel your did something today as you wrote something or posted something and got more than your own like. My contacts are 90% people I know well and see regularly (a lot of them smart people) and yet my timeline feels fake and plastic; it is just easy wa…

> only use messenger and occasionally upvote someone's birthday

If someone means little enough to you that this is how you wish them a happy birthday, maybe you shouldn't bother at all. If they mean something to you, pick up a phone and call them.

All you're accomplishing, is helping Facebook encourage that person to continue using it by giving them that little dopamine hit from your "upvote".

If people looked at Facebook "birthday wishes" for what they are, they'd be seen as a negative.

"This person put in as much effort wishing me happy birthday as random people on reddit do upvoting cat memes"

Re: Facebook Faces a New World as Officials Rein in a Wild Web

#87
I actually don't mind a little censorship of illegal-ish stuff (or at least warning, that hey, this person is trying to metaphorically sell you something illegal !), but what really bugs me is the subtle (and not so subtle), targeted manipulation I sometimes feel I experience, where there might be like many different usernames all targeting you but somehow all controlled by the same person / interest, and you just think it's normal conversation... (Apparently Reddit is mostly bots?) I think we saw some (heck, a lot of this) in the 2016 election, and personally I try to keep myself to a human-usable number of usernames (I think I have like 5 to hackernews as I forget passwords, but tend to use at most one, or two obviously linked ones for an extended period of time, and then switch if I say something too stupid and want to get a clean start) I don't think something like necessitating a real id is a good idea, since then everything you say is tied to you forever (hail satan), but I'm sure some kind of manipulation detection would be possible... would be an interesting project to work on actually.

Re: Facebook Faces a New World as Officials Rein in a Wild Web

#88
post #83
post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's arguably those mainstream users who are problematic That sounds a bit ignorant. Those mainstream users are the vast majority, they make a lot of internet business models worthwhile and made the internet the success that it is. Of course they also attract sharks as you rightfully say, but we should try to improve their experiences instead of denying them any sense or intelligence and putting them in walled gard…

> internet business models Many idealists considered that a ridiculous idea.

And many didn't. Weasel words abound.

Re: Facebook Faces a New World as Officials Rein in a Wild Web

#89
post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The result, though, is not actual privacy protection. It's more that you choose to surrender your privacy to someone, in exchange for protection from other nasties. It's almost like some kind of weird digital feudalism. You're free to come and go, and if you want, you can live in the wild and take your chances. But if you want the safety of the walls and armed defenders, that comes with a lot of strings attached. And…

Well, "feudalism" is an exaggeration since you can belong to as many as you want, and sharing some things (such as republishing links) is not hard. But there is always going to be some kind of a speedbump when sharing between places with different policies. When you have borders between things that are genuinely different (even if they're gratuitous differences), you have border issues. Bigger social networks mean yo…

> Well, "feudalism" is an exaggeration since you can belong to as many as you want, and sharing some things (such as republishing links) is not hard.

I'll grant you the first part, but sharing is actually a lot harder than it used to be, these days. Try sharing a Facebook post or comment with someone who doesn't have a Facebook account...

> In devtools, each programming language tends to be its own domain. (Which is why we call them "foreign" functions.)

True, but we also develop FFI as a way to call those foreign functions, and meta-frameworks to enable cross-language interop (WinRT being the most recent prominent example of such). Worst case, you can use standard formats and protocols to at least exchange data. Whereas "walled gardens" tend to be deliberately hard to interop with, or even to extract your existing data from.

Re: Facebook Faces a New World as Officials Rein in a Wild Web

#90
post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> internet business models Many idealists considered that a ridiculous idea.

And many didn't. Weasel words abound.

Do you deny that commercialization of the Internet in the mid 1990s was controversial?
Post reply on HN