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

Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 236 posts

Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks

#21

Post by Barrin92 »

gfodor wrote: post #15
Barrin92 wrote: post #11

The most baffling quote from the article, citing Zuckerberg >“I’m Jewish, and there’s a set of people who deny that the Holocaust happened. I find that deeply offensive,” Mr. Zuckerberg said. “But at the end of the day, I don’t believe that our platform should take that down because I think there are things that different people get wrong. I don’t think that they’re intentionally getting it wrong.” Ah yes, the very c…

I'm assuming people railing on Zuck here don't like Zuck, so it's odd to me they would prefer he become the world's arbiter of permitted speech.

I don't prefer he become the arbiter of speech. I'd prefer the government would regulate his business and hold him accountable for the damage that lies and misinformation cause on his platform. Given that he recently called for more regulation, surely he'll agree.

Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks

#22

Post by tacosx »

frequentnapper wrote: post #2

Why can't Nancy Pelosi sue facebook for $100 billion for allowing a doctored video about her to spread? They can't use the Napster defense of "we're only a platform."

They have a very strong defense thanks to the CDA and DMCA act which these large tech platforms wrote. They wrote themselves blanket immunity for nearly any type of content, in any type of context.

https://www.copyrightcontentplatforms.com/2019/03/the-scope-...

Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks

#23

Post by ar-jan »

ar-jan wrote: post #19

Interesting how they're sidestepping the actually rather disfluent speech from Pelosi that prompted questions. Compare https://twitter.com/robbystarbuck/status/1131242531503534080 with the C-SPAN video: https://www.c-span.org/video/?460990-1/speaker-pelosi-presid... (e.g. from around 3:00): not edited.

My my Hacker News! How dare I link to an actual C-SPAN video, huh? Downvote away! Ignorance is bliss!

Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks

#24

Post by frequentnapper »

azangru wrote: post #20
frequentnapper wrote: post #2

Why can't Nancy Pelosi sue facebook for $100 billion for allowing a doctored video about her to spread? They can't use the Napster defense of "we're only a platform."

I am confused. Facebook is a person-to-person(s) interaction. If someone wants to show their followers a doctored video, why should Facebook prevent it? (The other day, someone on Reddit reminded that in Russia it’s illegal to repost the Putin gay clown meme [1]. And of course there is the famous Chinese ban of Winnie-the-Pooh images. Is this in any way worse than removing the doctored video of Nancy Pelosi would hav…

There's a difference between satire and downright slander if the viewers can't tell the difference if something is doctored.

Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks

#25

Post by neilv »

I think part of the problem here is that Facebook doesn't want to be an impartial common carrier, so they have to take responsibility for "content".

Then you have one of the most influential venues (which has taken over much of the use cases of the original open Web and Internet) having to answer to politicians about what speech it should censor.

Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks

#27

Post by davidw »

I think several things can be true at the same time:

* It's pretty worrying that our fascist-adjacent president is spreading doctored videos with essentially no repercussions.

* Asking FB/Twitter/etc to police videos could be quite a mess in its own right.

* This is a pressing problem for democracies around the world.

(Note: I don't use the 'f word' lightly. Too many on the left use it freely with "people on the right they don't like". I think a person who loathes the free press, loves dictators, chafes at the idea of the rule of law, and threatens violence against political opponents fits the bill, though).

Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks

#28

Post by hirundo »

A partial distributed solution would be for trusted sites to vouch for a hash of the video file, and the browser to be configured to flag or filter untrusted content.

E.g. NYT, the DNC, Pelosi's own site, etc., would flag a hash of a file as valid. Those sites would be aggregated into a web of trust. Users subscribe to nodes of that web, e.g. I trust reporter A, celebrity B, newspaper C, advocacy group D ... and their trust webs out to a depth of X.

Is there anything like this in the works? Kind of a DNS service for propagating networks of trust ratings?

Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks

#29

Post by Nition »

I don't fully understand why people think Facebook should be policing content, yet no-one thinks the phone company should delete SMS messages that are spreading misinformation, or the postal service should destroy false mail etc.

It it because Facebook makes it much easier to share something with a wide audience? Is it because "the algorithm" means Facebook has more responsibility than if it were a simple chronological feed?

Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks

#30

Post by darkpuma »

Barrin92 wrote: post #21
gfodor wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm assuming people railing on Zuck here don't like Zuck, so it's odd to me they would prefer he become the world's arbiter of permitted speech.

I don't prefer he become the arbiter of speech. I'd prefer the government would regulate his business and hold him accountable for the damage that lies and misinformation cause on his platform. Given that he recently called for more regulation, surely he'll agree.

When Zuckerberg calls for more regulation, he's actually requesting regulatory capture that ensures future competitors to facebook will be fighting an uphill battle.
Post reply on HN