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

Most Americans Think Facebook and Twitter Censor Their Political Views

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 412 posts

Re: Most Americans Think Facebook and Twitter Censor Their Political Views

#181

Post by s73v3r_ »

orbifold wrote: post #69
nascar_is_bad wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think the biggest contributor is just that left-leaning people are more likely to be offended by right-leaning views. More likely to have empathy is another way to phrase that.

You can be super emphatic an right wing, how do you think someone becomes a populist nationalist. Besides from a European perspective even someone like Obama or even more obviously Hillary (based on the amount of war mongering she has done alone) is center or ultra right.

"Besides from a European perspective even someone like Obama or even more obviously Hillary (based on the amount of war mongering she has done alone) is center or ultra right."

All things are relative. Given that description of Obama or Clinton, what would you classify those who ran as Republicans in the last election?

Re: Most Americans Think Facebook and Twitter Censor Their Political Views

#182

Post by s73v3r_ »

Mikhail_Edoshin wrote: post #150
erikpukinskis wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conservatives do seem to see themselves as people who don’t get offended. I wonder what causes that. There seems to be an idea that the things that offend them are, like, “naturally” abhorrent, so it’s not offense so much as, like... digust in satanic things, virtue in “common sense”, etc. There’s a whole language to talk about things that carefully avoids the concept of “being offended”.

I'd say that to be offended by something you have to believe that things ought not to be that way and the fact that they are can only be a personal attack on you carried out by some evil forces. This is not too rational, so yes, most conservatives do not get offended. (Another reason could be that idea of loving thy neighbor as he is, not as you believe he should be.)

That's flat out false; conservatives get offended all the time. Remember the "War on Christmas"?

Re: Most Americans Think Facebook and Twitter Censor Their Political Views

#183

Post by glitchc »

pvg wrote: post #137
glitchc wrote: post #51

Everyone at one point has made a comment that has been downvoted or moderated out of existence. The rejection sticks in your mind. Effectively, that is censorship.

The rejection sticks in your mind. "If it feels bad it's censorship" is not a particularly useful definition of 'censorship'. It should give you pause that most messageboard complaints about 'censorship' revolve around it - you never see someone passionately argue how their top comment (with page-consuming thread hanging off it) is 'censoring' other viewpoints.

Downvoting and moderation are censorship though. If people dismiss your views out of hand without a rational response, such as a downvote or comment deleted by a moderator, the hurt feelings are natural because it's an action without a rationale (no mens rea).

Why would someone complain about their comment being the top comment? They are the most popular person at that point.

Re: Most Americans Think Facebook and Twitter Censor Their Political Views

#184

Post by pmarreck »

hedora wrote: post #173
pmarreck wrote: post #128

Lack of trust is a bullshit argument. It's basically the Conspiracy Fallacy: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFalla... Is there any evidence to support this assertion and that Facebook isn't merely showing you information that is palatable to you? (Note that this greatly expands the use of this fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom_of_repugnance ) I think we all have to answer these ques…

Search for “facebook hires censors” on the search engine of your choice. The story was broadly covered by sources across the political spectrum. And in answer to your two questions: Yes, I expect news sources to have journalisic integrity, even if the truth is not popular.

I can't find anything from a remotely unbiased source on "facebook hires censors" other than this: https://www.popsci.com/Facebook-hiring-3000-content-monitors

Which is basically just content monitoring that AI can't do... child exploitation, hate speech, gore, pornography, etc.

I think it's a pretty damn right-wing slippery-slope you're traversing if you assume that's equivalent to "censorship of rogue ideas"

Re: Most Americans Think Facebook and Twitter Censor Their Political Views

#185

Post by s73v3r_ »

glitchc wrote: post #78
stephengillie wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're submitting too fast. Please slow down. Thanks.

Would you assume I'm right-wing if I do not use politically correct terminology? Will slowing down change my world-view or simply the language I use to express it?

"Would you assume I'm right-wing if I do not use politically correct terminology?"

I would, because it implies that your desire to not change how you speak is more important to you than making others feel comfortable.

Re: Most Americans Think Facebook and Twitter Censor Their Political Views

#186

Post by Andrex »

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #67
josteink wrote: post #27

I can fully believe that. Try for instance to have a discussion here on hacker news about the less fortunate sides of diversity initiatives. Then see how many minutes it takes before your entire thread is flagged and effectively censored.

I’ve observed a similar phenomena on articles about the wrongdoings of the US government. Well cited high quality articles about historical or contemporary US aggression overseas disappear quickly even when they had been getting upvotes. I noticed a similar trend on Facebook. My posts about the tragedy occurring right now in Yemen got almost no traffic on Facebook, despite being worded and cited similarly to my other…

Isn't it possible that what's happening in Yemen, just but its nature, is a turn-off for most of FB's user base?

Re: Most Americans Think Facebook and Twitter Censor Their Political Views

#187

Post by ihsw2 »

friedman23 wrote: post #170
crazygringo wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am actually surprised by what appears to be HN's explicit censorship of this topic. Just two days ago this NYT editorial [1] was on the front page of HN with 20+ upvotes IIRC, and before there were more than 1 or 2 comments the post was deleted and unviewable. (And didn't show up as flagged either -- just totally deleted.) I'm not sure how many people on HN are aware of what appears to be admin censorship of this t…

I don't believe that it is hacker news admins that are doing the censorship. There is a flag feature and any post that is flagged is automatically hidden. There is a dedicated contingent of users that will flag anything that goes against their narrative. This happens for articles that discuss China, diversity, etc.

It would be prudent to let "controversial" subjects stand before the court of public opinion rather than be automatically censored, regardless of how riled up the comments section can get.

Re: Most Americans Think Facebook and Twitter Censor Their Political Views

#188

Post by pvg »

glitchc wrote: post #183
pvg wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rejection sticks in your mind. "If it feels bad it's censorship" is not a particularly useful definition of 'censorship'. It should give you pause that most messageboard complaints about 'censorship' revolve around it - you never see someone passionately argue how their top comment (with page-consuming thread hanging off it) is 'censoring' other viewpoints.

Downvoting and moderation are censorship though. If people dismiss your views out of hand without a rational response, such as a downvote or comment deleted by a moderator, the hurt feelings are natural because it's an action without a rationale (no mens rea). Why would someone complain about their comment being the top comment? They are the most popular person at that point.

So if you're the most popular person thereby 'censoring' other comments, that's not censorship? It's only censorship if it feels bad? What about the people who feel bad their comment isn't the top comment? I'm in violent agreement that feeling bad feels... bad. It's just that's not what we normally call censorship, if the term is to have any semblance of an objective meaning.

Re: Most Americans Think Facebook and Twitter Censor Their Political Views

#189

Post by azborder »

pmarreck wrote: post #184
hedora wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Search for “facebook hires censors” on the search engine of your choice. The story was broadly covered by sources across the political spectrum. And in answer to your two questions: Yes, I expect news sources to have journalisic integrity, even if the truth is not popular.

I can't find anything from a remotely unbiased source on "facebook hires censors" other than this: https://www.popsci.com/Facebook-hiring-3000-content-monitors Which is basically just content monitoring that AI can't do... child exploitation, hate speech, gore, pornography, etc. I think it's a pretty damn right-wing slippery-slope you're traversing if you assume that's equivalent to "censorship of rogue ideas"

“Hate speech” seems to cover a pretty wide spectrum these days.

Re: Most Americans Think Facebook and Twitter Censor Their Political Views

#190

Post by s73v3r_ »

glitchc wrote: post #183
pvg wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rejection sticks in your mind. "If it feels bad it's censorship" is not a particularly useful definition of 'censorship'. It should give you pause that most messageboard complaints about 'censorship' revolve around it - you never see someone passionately argue how their top comment (with page-consuming thread hanging off it) is 'censoring' other viewpoints.

Downvoting and moderation are censorship though. If people dismiss your views out of hand without a rational response, such as a downvote or comment deleted by a moderator, the hurt feelings are natural because it's an action without a rationale (no mens rea). Why would someone complain about their comment being the top comment? They are the most popular person at that point.

"Downvoting and moderation are censorship though. If people dismiss your views out of hand without a rational response, such as a downvote or comment deleted by a moderator, the hurt feelings are natural because it's an action without a rationale (no mens rea)."

But doesn't that imply that you're entitled to a response? And why would you say there's no rationale? It might not be a rationale that you like, but there certainly is one; your post was either violating the guidelines or wasn't contributing to the conversation.

"Why would someone complain about their comment being the top comment? They are the most popular person at that point."

That viewpoint is part of the problem; votes aren't supposed to be about popularity.

Post reply on HN