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

31–40 of 236 posts

Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks

#31

Post by manfredo »

I don't think the idea that companies should host all content except for illegal content is a better approach. Porn is legal, as per the first amendment. Does that mean every social media platform is obligated to allow it? Furthermore it would eliminate the possibility of themed platforms. Things like pixiv and DeviantArt would have to allow content totally unrelated to art.

The whole discussion is moot, at least not without a significant reinterpretation of the fist amendment. Remember, the first amendment also protects against compelled speech. The government cannot mandate people or companies to make speech it does not want to. There's some talk about whether making these social media platforms utilities could allow the government to compel speech, but that seems far fetched at the moment.

Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks

#32

Post by Gibbon1 »

tomek_zemla wrote: post #6
DyslexicAtheist wrote: post #5

I wonder if it would have taken FB that long to demote the video if it had depicted Sandberg or Zuckerberg slinging racial slurs.

That is an interesting question and could be empirically determined with an experiment.

That's my suggestion.

Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks

#33

Post by Macross8299 »

frequentnapper wrote: post #24
azangru wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

An average facebook user being able to ascertain the authenticity of something is a very poor barometer for its authenticity or legality.

Average FB user probably couldn't tell you if Panama papers were authentic or not, so should those be banned from dissemination as "fake news"? Plenty of people would like to make those go away as slander, I'm sure.

Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks

#34

Post by dominotw »

davidw wrote: post #27

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 righ…

I was watching bill maher show on hbo and there was some older female guest( don't remember the name) and she was like maybe we should contact our uae friends and have them give our president the khashoggi treatment. Everyone in the room started clapping and cheering. wtf.

Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks

#35

Post by jnbiche »

davidw wrote: post #27

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 righ…

> Note: I don't use the 'f word' lightly. Too many on the left use it very 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)

You forgot "hates an independent judiciary" and "uses office for personal enrichment". Some may quibble with the use of fascist to describe him, but he's very clearly authoritarian and anti-democratic. What has surprised me is the relatively large percentage of my compatriots who are also authoritarian and anti-democratic. All that stuff about the constitution was just lip service.

Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks

#36

Post by kneel »

Facebook didn't doctor the video, out of all the content they could be blasted on this is pretty trivial.

This is part of a larger trend in MSM to pry eyeballs away from social media and back to traditional one way media.

Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks

#37

Post by sockpuppet999 »

frequentnapper wrote: post #24
azangru wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Isn't it up to each viewer to determine the difference. Having some authority telling me what is or isn't real is not a world I'd choose the participate in. Let the user decide for themselves- one person's propaganda == another person's trusted source

Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks

#39

Post by Traster »

kneel wrote: post #36

Facebook didn't doctor the video, out of all the content they could be blasted on this is pretty trivial. This is part of a larger trend in MSM to pry eyeballs away from social media and back to traditional one way media.

Facebook knew the video was doctored- it was a mainstream news story for days. They chose not to content ID it, but instead to continue spreading it. That seems deliberate.

Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks

#40

Post by _cs2017_ »

What should be the rule about what videos are banned? We don't want to ban parodies I suppose? What if the author of the Pelosi video claims it's a parody?

It would be great if we could allow parodies and jokes as long as a reasonable person can tell that this is indeed a joke. But that won't work since people disagree about what's "reasonable".

I guess we can require that parodies and jokes are tagged as such, so people don't confuse them with real stuff. Is that too overbearing?

Are there any better solutions that have been proposed?

Post reply on HN