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

Facebook Security Chief Said to Leave After Clashes Over Disinformation

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 436 posts

Re: Facebook Security Chief Said to Leave After Clashes Over Disinformation

#261

Post by briandear »

TAForObvReasons wrote: post #215
ionforce wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably a critical mass. It's just like technological adoption: there's an early adopters group and then the masses come in waves.

A bunch of individual scattered movements were under attack at once. Women's movements were crushed by this overt misogynist who bragged about sexual harassment. Minority movements were crushed by the overt racist who started his campaign on the idea that the overwhelming majority of Mexican-Americans were murderers and rapists. Many people believed that America as a whole would reject the regressiveness of Trump. Wh…

Trump got 41% of the female vote.

Re: Facebook Security Chief Said to Leave After Clashes Over Disinformation

#262

Post by Consultant32452 »

anigbrowl wrote: post #77
netsharc wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm no fan of Facebook, but if they have some sort of contract with CA, isn't it within their right to audit them? And if one company wanted to invite another for whatever collaboration, they should be allowed to. And if the collaboration is doing something illegal, obviously personnel from both companies should be charged. And FB can do whatever investigation it wants (as long it's legal) and the authorities are fre…

When police are involved that's one of those 'get in line' situations. I suspect the UK authorities are far more worried about the potential for destruction of evidence that they are in hampering an 'investigation' by FB.

No, when police are involved that's one of those 'maximally invoke your rights' situations. The police are the enemy. Get whatever brigade of lawyers you can afford and stop their efforts in any way you can. This is true whether you're an unfortunate person who happened to be driving while black or a multinational corporation.

Re: Facebook Security Chief Said to Leave After Clashes Over Disinformation

#263

Post by superioritycplx »

downandout wrote: post #108
mattnewton wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don’t need to flip the voters, just get them to not show up, and get more republicans to show up. This isn’t about politics, this is about buisiness interests, and professional reputation. Some examples of ads using this technique: http://amp.timeinc.net/fortune/2016/11/03/text-vote-hillary-... https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/01/us/politics/russia-2016-e...

Hillary Clinton had a $1.2 billion campaign budget, along with the vast majority of active social media users, the whole of Silicon Valley, and most of the press on her side. If Democrats didn’t show up to vote for her, the root cause wasn’t less than $1 million worth of ads for fake news stories.

She had Eric Schmidt for crying out loud. Not suspicious at all.

https://qz.com/823922/eric-schmidt-played-a-crucial-role-in-...

Re: Facebook Security Chief Said to Leave After Clashes Over Disinformation

#264

Post by mancerayder »

TAForObvReasons wrote: post #215
ionforce wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably a critical mass. It's just like technological adoption: there's an early adopters group and then the masses come in waves.

A bunch of individual scattered movements were under attack at once. Women's movements were crushed by this overt misogynist who bragged about sexual harassment. Minority movements were crushed by the overt racist who started his campaign on the idea that the overwhelming majority of Mexican-Americans were murderers and rapists. Many people believed that America as a whole would reject the regressiveness of Trump. Wh…

I don't know if the movements were suddenly under attack. What is more clear to me is many became more overt and loud after Trump was elected. There was a sense of urgency and threat based on nothing other than what Trump and others like Bannon had said. Mind you, just said. Whether they were actual threats (or are) is definitely a legitimate (if separate) debate. Your causality is, however, arguing that the reverse happened: the opening shot came from the Trump side.

I don't think this discussion has much to do with the Facebook story above, however.

I think the question of news manipulation based on headlines[1] affects both the left and the right and happened to be facilitated by Facebook and its hungry data chewers. It's got to monetize that somehow, right?

Oh, and I remember when the Facebook IPO happened a bunch of buddies at a large investment bank argued that there was no way a platform like that had any value, etc. and so forth. And I remember arguing that the data they had had some value, we just don't know (and I didn't know) just for what, yet.

1 - https://medium.com/the-mission/the-enemy-in-our-feeds-e86511... <-- You all must read this!

Re: Facebook Security Chief Said to Leave After Clashes Over Disinformation

#265

Post by beachy »

traek wrote: post #229
oflannabhra wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was referring to employees in the last paragraph. I agree that users will probably not leave, unfortunately.

I very much doubt that most employees at Facebook share your viewpoint that Facebook is a net negative for society. It’s almost a tautology—people who feel that way won’t seek employment there.

Some employees probably feel that they can help move things in a better direction.

Re: Facebook Security Chief Said to Leave After Clashes Over Disinformation

#266

Post by ceejayoz »

defen wrote: post #125
mattnewton wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don’t need to flip the voters, just get them to not show up, and get more republicans to show up. This isn’t about politics, this is about buisiness interests, and professional reputation. Some examples of ads using this technique: http://amp.timeinc.net/fortune/2016/11/03/text-vote-hillary-... https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/01/us/politics/russia-2016-e...

Those ads read like parodies of a Russian attempting to write English. Nearly every one has a grammatical error or a factual inaccuracy that is obvious after 2 seconds of thought. I particularly like "dynastic succession of the Clinton family in American politics breaches the core democratic principles laid out by our founding fathers", especially given that the son of one of our presidential founding fathers himself…

> Nearly every one has a grammatical error or a factual inaccuracy that is obvious after 2 seconds of thought.

You'll find plenty of that in good old home-grown American propaganda, on both far-left and far-right.

Re: Facebook Security Chief Said to Leave After Clashes Over Disinformation

#267

Post by ekianjo »

opportune wrote: post #214
ekianjo wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Propaganda is not received in the same way. Nothing new here, seriously. Propaganda from both sides before elections has existed for as long as there were political debates and political campaigns. The fact that we have now systems to make Propaganda more targeted may make it more effective than before, but that's all. In the end, believing or not in Propaganda is the individual's responsibility.

I highly disagree. It's easier to simply disallow veiled political advertisements (propaganda) for both platforms and propagandists. Nobody has a "right" to spread propaganda, just like nobody has a right to defraud people simply because they aren't able to spot a scam

The point is that fraud is illegal, and prosecuted when found, this is made very clear to begin with. Spreading information or misinformation is not, and it is up to the recipient to use critical thinking. If you believe people are being manipulated because they can't seen through blatant lies, then the problem is not in the lies.

Re: Facebook Security Chief Said to Leave After Clashes Over Disinformation

#268

Post by mancerayder »

I'm reposting just this link from another (my) comment below, because I find it incredibly relevant and insightful to anyone who wants to understand how adtech, news and Facebook combined programmatically to create a divisive (but catchy) morass of news:

https://medium.com/the-mission/the-enemy-in-our-feeds-e86511...

Re: Facebook Security Chief Said to Leave After Clashes Over Disinformation

#269

Post by s2g »

hueving wrote: post #221

>who started his campaign on the idea that the overwhelming majority of Mexican-Americans were murderers and rapists. This is blatantly false. Where did you get this idea and why doesn't it raise a red flag for being so rediculous when you repeat it?

> Where did you get this idea

The infamous news clip.

People do leave off the "and some, I assume, are good people", but that really doesn't make it much better does it?

Re: Facebook Security Chief Said to Leave After Clashes Over Disinformation

#270

Post by oh_sigh »

Spooky23 wrote: post #237
oh_sigh wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure do. This kind of double speak is rampant. One that bubbles to the top of my head is that when some people were targeted for anti-HRC messages(I think specifically it was Haitian Americans on the gulf coast), then that was labeled as "voter suppression", but targeting likely voters for Trump and spreading negative information about him, say the access Hollywood tapes, is "informing the voters"

There’s a difference between implying that a racial/ethnic group will get hassled or deported, etc due to their race and saying that Trump said douchey things in an interview. Voter suppression is a term of art that means something. Democrats generally don’t engage in it because more people voting usually translates to more people voting democrat.

That's not what the ads were saying - they were talking about how CGI spent(or didn't spend) money in Haiti
Post reply on HN