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

41–50 of 236 posts

Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks

#41

Post by daenz »

friggeri wrote: post #18

I'm very uncomfortable with the current trend of trying to get big tech to self police. They'll never get it right because of moving goal posts and moreover I don't want a private company to have that power in shaping social discourse. If we as a society deem that type of content to be improper and that it should not be allowed on such platforms, then let's make that explicit from a legal perspective and regulate the…

>that type of content

Therein lies the problem. The video was slowed down and the audio slightly distorted. I don't see a set of metrics that can capture that "type" of alteration that doesn't also capture tons of content. Unless, of course, you go down the route of saying "it's illegal to post any altered video or image of any politician."

Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks

#42

Post by rlt »

manfredo wrote: post #31

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…

I completely agree when it comes to small to medium-sized websites, but Facebook is effectively a monopoly. At a minimum they should have clearly defined rules and transparent processes for censoring content and banning users.

Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks

#43

Post by khuey »

Nition wrote: post #29

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 chronologic…

tl;dr: yes, it's "the algorithm"

Facebook (and Youtube et al) have chosen not to be content-agnostic distribution platforms (unlike the postal service and SMS). They perform a variety of editorial functions to curate content and provide recommendations with the objective of maximizing engagement and hence advertising impressions that they can sell. This is popularly known as "the algorithm".

Given that these platforms have chosen to selectively display content for profit, many people believe that they should have some sort of responsibility for the editorial decisions they make.

Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks

#44

Post by js2 »

jnbiche wrote: post #35
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…

> 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.

To the extent that the constitution maintains the status quo, it is embraced. To the extent that it upsets existing social order, not so much.

According to Stenner's theory, there is a certain subset of people who hold latent authoritarian tendencies. These tendencies can be triggered or "activated" by the perception of physical threats or by destabilizing social change, leading those individuals to desire policies and leaders that we might more colloquially call authoritarian.

...

Authoritarians prioritize social order and hierarchies, which bring a sense of control to a chaotic world. Challenges to that order — diversity, influx of outsiders, breakdown of the old order — are experienced as personally threatening because they risk upending the status quo order they equate with basic security.

https://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11127424/trump-authoritarianism

Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks

#45

Post by manfredo »

rlt wrote: post #42
manfredo wrote: post #31

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…

I completely agree when it comes to small to medium-sized websites, but Facebook is effectively a monopoly. At a minimum they should have clearly defined rules and transparent processes for censoring content and banning users.

> At a minimum they should have clearly defined rules and transparent processes for censoring content and banning users.

They do their best to document this: https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/

The simple reality I see is that Facebook has to please the majority of people, but people are reluctant to confront the fact that some of their views are significantly out of line with the majority. So people react negatively when their own content is banned, and also when content they think should be banned is allowed.

That and an either an unwillingness to accept or understand the limitations of automated content moderation. There was a post on the front page of Reddit about an artist who got their Facebook page taken down for making KKK-style MAGA hats, and nazi-style MAGA armbands (crucially, with a swatstika). It's unambiguously anti-Trump in context, but of course it's going to get automatically flagged when it prominently features items strongly aligned with hate speech.

Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks

#46

Post by drilldrive »

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…

Trump didn't spread the video, his lawyer Giuliani did. Trump pinned a video of spliced moments of Pelosi stumbling on her words: each segment was raw footage.

Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks

#47

Post by rlt »

tacosx wrote: post #22
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-...

Facebook and Google didn't even exist when CDA and DMCA were passed.

Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks

#48

Post by Macross8299 »

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.

Yeah, I really have noticed an increase in "Facebook is bad" content from mainstream media, usually blasting them because people use the platform to spread fake news as people have used any other platform to spread fake news since time memorial. Where were these hand-wringing articles when Facebook was pioneering the degradation of privacy standards or pushing invasive tracking across the web? I guess those don't threaten the old media business model as much.

Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks

#50

Post by sockpuppet999 »

Macross8299 wrote: post #33
frequentnapper wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Please. Don't fall into the trap of underestimating others intelligence. Even that typical Facebook user from another state has valid reasons and thier opinion or values are no better than my( or Yours) I'm not trying to argue one bit okay? But how exactly do you know the Panama papers are legitimate? Do you have an inside source or did you hear about this issue the same way I did? I agree with you that it fits perfectly into my own world view and I caution you and myself to not take stuff like that as a golden source of true info. No matter how much I'd like to think it's all true, in this day and age one must be more careful about accepting sources of info as gods honest truth because there are folks out there who spend thier lives,fortunes and passions just to mislead or misinform allegedly informed ppl like me( and you)
Post reply on HN