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

Roger McNamee is really sad about Facebook

time.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 68 posts

Re: Roger McNamee is really sad about Facebook

#41

Post by nrb »

smsm42 wrote: post #38

I'm reading all the time about how fake news on Facebook supposedly influenced the elections, but I haven't heard of any factual confirmation of that. Did it really happen? Did somebody research that? How much influence did they find? I have seen research that says convincing people campaigning is pretty much hopeless - they'd nod to ads they agree with and ignore ones they disagree with, but won't change their minds…

It’s not about changing minds, it’s about making sure people get out the vote by appealing to people’s emotions through misleading statements or outright lies (they are taking away your guns, they are prdophiles!)

Re: Roger McNamee is really sad about Facebook

#42

Post by CydeWeys »

simmanian wrote: post #24
CydeWeys wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A benefit corporation perhaps? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefit_corporation

Do you know of any successful and "big" companies that follow the structure?

Per the linked article, B corps are a very new thing -- they started within this decade and not all states even have them yet.

Almost all big companies are older than B corps have existed for. It might be a "wait and see" kind of thing.

Re: Roger McNamee is really sad about Facebook

#43

Post by sk5t »

smacktoward wrote: post #29

> Zuck has always believed that connecting everyone on earth was a mission so important that it justified any action necessary to accomplish it. Anytime someone starts telling you that their end is so noble it justifies any means, you should run away from them as fast as you possibly can.

"The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons." --Ralph Waldo Emerson

Re: Roger McNamee is really sad about Facebook

#45

Post by smsm42 »

nrb wrote: post #41
smsm42 wrote: post #38

I'm reading all the time about how fake news on Facebook supposedly influenced the elections, but I haven't heard of any factual confirmation of that. Did it really happen? Did somebody research that? How much influence did they find? I have seen research that says convincing people campaigning is pretty much hopeless - they'd nod to ads they agree with and ignore ones they disagree with, but won't change their minds…

It’s not about changing minds, it’s about making sure people get out the vote by appealing to people’s emotions through misleading statements or outright lies (they are taking away your guns, they are prdophiles!)

Wait, I though getting people to vote is a good thing? I am seeing a wave of propaganda to vote each time elections are near, registration drives, celebrity appeals, etc. Everybody is talking about how voting is good, not voting is bad and "suppressing" somebody's vote (including convincing them not to vote) is plain awful. There's a case where judge threatened a person with jail unless they vote: https://www.wkyc.com/article/news/investigator-judge-ordered... (clearly unlawful but the judge wouldn't do it unless they thought voting is great).

So if fake news drive people to vote it should be a good thing, at least in the minds of people that think voting is always good?

Re: Roger McNamee is really sad about Facebook

#46

Post by smsm42 »

avn2109 wrote: post #40
smsm42 wrote: post #38

I'm reading all the time about how fake news on Facebook supposedly influenced the elections, but I haven't heard of any factual confirmation of that. Did it really happen? Did somebody research that? How much influence did they find? I have seen research that says convincing people campaigning is pretty much hopeless - they'd nod to ads they agree with and ignore ones they disagree with, but won't change their minds…

The waters are further muddied by the fact that nobody can agree on a definition of "fake news." It's meaningless, sensational claims all the way down.

I suspect if we had a workable definition finding any evidence it has had any influence would become even harder.

Re: Roger McNamee is really sad about Facebook

#47

Post by kelnos »

smsm42 wrote: post #45
nrb wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not about changing minds, it’s about making sure people get out the vote by appealing to people’s emotions through misleading statements or outright lies (they are taking away your guns, they are prdophiles!)

Wait, I though getting people to vote is a good thing? I am seeing a wave of propaganda to vote each time elections are near, registration drives, celebrity appeals, etc. Everybody is talking about how voting is good, not voting is bad and "suppressing" somebody's vote (including convincing them not to vote) is plain awful. There's a case where judge threatened a person with jail unless they vote: https://www.wkyc.co…

So if fake news drive people to vote it should be a good thing

Absolutely not. I would rather people not vote at all than vote based on incorrect information.

Re: Roger McNamee is really sad about Facebook

#48

Post by kelnos »

avn2109 wrote: post #40
smsm42 wrote: post #38

I'm reading all the time about how fake news on Facebook supposedly influenced the elections, but I haven't heard of any factual confirmation of that. Did it really happen? Did somebody research that? How much influence did they find? I have seen research that says convincing people campaigning is pretty much hopeless - they'd nod to ads they agree with and ignore ones they disagree with, but won't change their minds…

The waters are further muddied by the fact that nobody can agree on a definition of "fake news." It's meaningless, sensational claims all the way down.

Sure we do: fake news is the dissemination of incorrect information purporting to be the truth (and not someone's opinion).

Re: Roger McNamee is really sad about Facebook

#50

Post by [deleted] »

imjk wrote: post #12
hvs wrote: post #10

I got involved with the company more than a decade ago and have taken great pride and joy in the company’s success … until the past few months. few months ? Then you haven't been paying attention or are just as bad as them.

He says in the next paragraph that that was from an email he sent to Marc and Sheryl before the 2016 election.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN