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

91–100 of 236 posts

Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks

#91

Post by rickycook »

slg wrote: post #76
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…

In the US that would require a constitutional amendment to alter the First Amendment. The chances of that happening are infinitesimally small compared to companies being shamed into doing that "right thing" through public pressure.

i don’t think it would tbh... the US already places limitations on free speech: you’re not allowed to advertise using false information, the “fire in a crowded place” type thing

you might SAY that it’s a slippery slope but i’d argue that it’s likely (not that i know for certain) that there would have been just as much angst about these limits that are not only seen as common sense these days, but necessary

Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks

#92

Post by bryanrasmussen »

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…

I think both, there is a point where increases in the ease of doing something signifies a categorical change in the activity, and since the algorithm is meant to drive engagement without thought to harm to Facebook's benefit people may think that they have some sort of responsibility to reconsider that algorithm, and mitigate the harm.

Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks

#93

Post by archgoon »

manfredo wrote: post #59
ianai wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, it’s entirely possible to have different legislation for different sized organizations. The tax bracket for individuals is an example. I’m more of the opinion that Facebook should be punished as an example. Don’t grow so big that your unilateral action could have devastating effects on society. Don’t do things with peoples data that remotely rises to the 1984 totalitarian level. See how fast we have publicl…

> Actually, it’s entirely possible to have different legislation for different sized organizations. The tax bracket for individuals is an example. Still illegal as per the First Amendment. The government cannot compel speech, regardless of company size. > I’m more of the opinion that Facebook should be punished as an example. Don’t grow so big that your unilateral action could have devastating effects on society. Don…

> Still illegal as per the First Amendment. The government cannot compel speech, regardless of company size.

The United States Government can't; however, the U.S. tends to have stronger free-speech laws than other countries, and as we've seen with GDPR, other governments (including some democratic governments) may choose to legislate additional restrictions that Facebook might end up just deploying everywhere. Not saying that this would necessarily be a good outcome.

Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks

#94

Post by jacobush »

Macross8299 wrote: post #66
khuey wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 platform…

Facebook isn't an editor, though, it's a curator. You use them interchangably but I think there's a crucial difference. An editor modifies to inject their own standards into the work. A curator just includes or disincludes as-is.

Curating on a fine grained enough level, you are not only an editor but even a story teller. You can make a narrative only quoting other people and it has been done many times in books and movies.

That this story is driven only by an advanced self-adjusting Skinner box to maximize advertiser revenue, is very weird. You never expect sci-fi to be so mundane when it becomes reality, but it always is.

Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks

#95

Post by [deleted] »

manfredo wrote: post #65
jnbiche wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Some may quibble with the use of fascist to describe him, but he's very clearly authoritarian and anti-democratic. That's pretty strange, seeing as he ran under the party that generally strives for lower government control in our lives - the direct opposite of fascism. And he has lessened government control in a variety of ways. One example (albeit one that is probably unpopular on HN) is deregulating telecoms. The…

[deleted]

Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks

#96

Post by devoply »

daenz wrote: post #41
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."

I don't see any such law passing first amendment challenge that's why the modern censorship for the right reason supporting centrist is down relegating it to private corporations that are not beholden to the US constitution.

Ultimately the fact is that freedom of speech does not actually work if people have actual freedom of speech. It only works under certain circumstances where most of the media toes the line with the political establishment and is relatively controlled.

Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks

#97

Post by sgt101 »

daenz wrote: post #41
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."

What would be the problem of making it illegal to alter video or images of politicians?

Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks

#98

Post by sgt101 »

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…

Facebook alters and manages the information flow to drive its commercial agenda. When it started doing that it lost the defence of being a neutral distribution platform like the mail service.

Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks

#99

Post by sgt101 »

Macross8299 wrote: post #66
khuey wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 platform…

Facebook isn't an editor, though, it's a curator. You use them interchangably but I think there's a crucial difference. An editor modifies to inject their own standards into the work. A curator just includes or disincludes as-is.

Facebook does modify content at the level of the feed; first it includes sponsored posts, second it promotes posts to people leading them to promote them to others.

Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks

#100

Post by sgt101 »

Macross8299 wrote: post #51
Traster wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why is Facebook obligated to play the role of referee in games of political fact?

Because that is the role they have chosen by becoming a non neutral information distributor.
Post reply on HN