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

Instructions from Facebook not to touch the posts of the cabinet minister

444.hu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 114 posts

Re: Instructions from Facebook not to touch the posts of the cabinet minister

#81

Post by menacingly »

danijelb wrote: post #10
Eochei5h wrote: post #4

The whole concept of "community standards" for a worldwide communication channel strikes me as newspeak for centralized moral policing. Imagine the leading social network weren't facebook but vkontakte or weibo and they imposed their own standards on billions of people communicating with each other. Filtering should be a tool available to individuals and delegatable to groups that are aligned with their own standards…

But Facebook is not a worldwide communication channel. It's a social network/community owned by a single company and its shareholders. Internet is the worldwide communication channel. You can "filter" it and make sure it aligns with your own standards by simply choosing to visit and use websites, communities and services which do align with your standards, and by avoiding those which don't align.

They'd better start acting like neutral carriers before government decides it for them. I totally get (and enjoy) the position that a private company can do whatever they like, but there is a scale at which you've enabled a platform with wide enough reach for enough people that restricting its use will be regarded as stifling speech by the only people who matter and who are more than capable of compelling you.

Re: Instructions from Facebook not to touch the posts of the cabinet minister

#82

Post by ReverseCold »

samstave wrote: post #69
gt_ wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if your own government uses Facebook to communicate with it’s populace? (For example, this ) Are you recommending everyone just stop participating in politics? I can’t imagine a more sheltered perspective. I’m guessing you’re an American. If so, please, stop following this advice! The rest of the world is begging you.

Look at the tweets in the last days from Trump regarding Omarosa... Personally, I'm disgusted that twitter is the official medium of the POTUS.

He should run an activitypub compatible Twitter clone (Mastodon/pleroma) at social.whitehouse.gov or something.

Re: Instructions from Facebook not to touch the posts of the cabinet minister

#83

Post by crankylinuxuser »

JacobJans wrote: post #42
Someguywhatever wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who gets to decide what are lies? Makes me think of this saying: "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king."

> "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king." And yet, there are so many instances where their is no ambiguity about the lies. They are simply bald-faced lies, and there is no doubt that they are indeed lies. And Facebook is quite aware that they are lies. And those lies get very widespread distribution on their platform. And those lies have real political consequences. In the land of the deceived, Facebook…

I'd be careful in immediately dismissing a new user.

It's convenient to make a statement into a boolean true|false. However, as we have learned many statements, especially in the political arena, are truths mixed with false premises, out-of-context quotes, partial quotes, and much more. Snopes and Politifact try to provide accurate in-between answers.. But yet, the damage was done.

And whom plays "truthmaker", Someguywhatever asked? Facebook? Google? Apple? Or the lord of some other fiefdom? Do we trust them? Do we have any other choice?

Or what happens when LGBT supporters say that lifestyle is perfectly normal; and Christians and Moslems have significant issue with that. Is that a lie? Truth? Fake News? What should social media orgs do about this?

All I can suggest, is wait and see before making rash horrible laws that will harm us worse than this crisis. There may be a clearer law that can be applied later on, with more research. (I've found that rash laws are almost never amended - DMCA, CFAA, et cetera)

Re: Instructions from Facebook not to touch the posts of the cabinet minister

#84

Post by sctb »

gt_ wrote: post #37
danijelb wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But Facebook is not a worldwide communication channel. It's a social network/community owned by a single company and its shareholders. Internet is the worldwide communication channel. You can "filter" it and make sure it aligns with your own standards by simply choosing to visit and use websites, communities and services which do align with your standards, and by avoiding those which don't align.

What if your own government uses Facebook to communicate with it’s populace? (For example, this ) Are you recommending everyone just stop participating in politics? I can’t imagine a more sheltered perspective. I’m guessing you’re an American. If so, please, stop following this advice! The rest of the world is begging you.

We've asked you quite a lot to please stop posting flame-y ideological, political, or nationalistic comments. It's not happening, so we've banned the account. If you'd like to use the site as intended please email hn@ycombinator.com.

Re: Instructions from Facebook not to touch the posts of the cabinet minister

#85

Post by darkerside »

maym86 wrote: post #71
paulsutter wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pizzagate was unfortunate and pathetic, but is controlling every post on the Internet the right response? Once censorship is in place, how do you prevent the wrong people from taking control of it? How would you even know?

> trying to control every post on the Internet Did I suggest this? The point is just unfollowing people as you suggested doesn't solve the problem.

Let me try to draw the line you're not following here. The solution parent is outlining is assigning responsibility for actions to the users of the platform, not is creators or maintainers.

Re: Instructions from Facebook not to touch the posts of the cabinet minister

#86

Post by [deleted] »

darkerside wrote: post #85
maym86 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> trying to control every post on the Internet Did I suggest this? The point is just unfollowing people as you suggested doesn't solve the problem.

Let me try to draw the line you're not following here. The solution parent is outlining is assigning responsibility for actions to the users of the platform, not is creators or maintainers.

[deleted]

Re: Instructions from Facebook not to touch the posts of the cabinet minister

#87

Post by empath75 »

paulsutter wrote: post #61

Is it really that hard to unfollow? Worked for me. I’ve unfollowed people for sportsball and I’ve unfollowed people for racism. Worked for both.

https://www.concordia.ca/research/migs/resources/rwanda-radi...

> From October 1993 to late 1994, RTLM was used by Hutu leaders to advance an extremist Hutu message and anti-Tutsi disinformation, spreading fear of a Tutsi genocide against Hutu, identifying specific Tutsi targets or areas where they could be found, and encouraging the progress of the genocide. In April 1994, Radio Rwanda began to advance a similar message, speaking for the national authorities, issuing directives on how and where to kill Tutsis, and congratulating those who had already taken part.

Almost a million people were killed during the genocide, egged on by radio stations. "Just don't listen to it" wouldn't have been an effective strategy.

Re: Instructions from Facebook not to touch the posts of the cabinet minister

#88

Post by empath75 »

darpa_escapee wrote: post #62
paulsutter wrote: post #61

Is it really that hard to unfollow? Worked for me. I’ve unfollowed people for sportsball and I’ve unfollowed people for racism. Worked for both.

You're conflating outright lies with liking sportsball.

being a racist and enjoying baseball -- basically morally equivalent, right.

Re: Instructions from Facebook not to touch the posts of the cabinet minister

#89

Post by kodablah »

Eochei5h wrote: post #23
jancsika wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The whole concept of "community standards" for a worldwide communication channel strikes me as newspeak for centralized moral policing. Moral policing? This article is about the opposite -- Facebook telling its "moral police" not to moderate posts from pro-government posters. The article also features a claim that someone at Facebook guided pro-government posters in the government to use dog whistles to get around…

Selective choice of inaction and complaints about that all play into the same tune, that facebook is the one doing the policing (sometimes). That's the root problem. If facebook were not the ultimate arbiter this article wouldn't have to exist in the first place.

> If facebook were not the ultimate arbiter this article wouldn't have to exist in the first place.

Just the myriad of other articles complaining about FB implicitly promoting hate by taking no responsibility for what is posted.

Re: Instructions from Facebook not to touch the posts of the cabinet minister

#90

Post by smt88 »

menacingly wrote: post #81
danijelb wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But Facebook is not a worldwide communication channel. It's a social network/community owned by a single company and its shareholders. Internet is the worldwide communication channel. You can "filter" it and make sure it aligns with your own standards by simply choosing to visit and use websites, communities and services which do align with your standards, and by avoiding those which don't align.

They'd better start acting like neutral carriers before government decides it for them. I totally get (and enjoy) the position that a private company can do whatever they like, but there is a scale at which you've enabled a platform with wide enough reach for enough people that restricting its use will be regarded as stifling speech by the only people who matter and who are more than capable of compelling you.

So if I want a non-neutral carrier, I have to go to a niche social network?

Forcing channels like Facebook to be neutral carriers only makes sense if they're a natural monopoly, which they aren't.

Post reply on HN