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

101–110 of 236 posts

Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks

#101

Post by cr1895 »

sgt101 wrote: post #97
daenz wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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?

It plainly violates the 1st amendment.

Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks

#102

Post by gmueckl »

manfredo wrote: post #45
rlt wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 n…

Any content moderation is bound to be imperfect and at that scale the absolute number of false negatives and false positives is enormous no matter what. Human moderators aren't perfect either. Automated moderation is not always accurate, but it will at least consistently make the same decision for the same comtent. And if you can use it to hide the most excessive stuff from human moderators to protect their mental health, then I think this is not a bad way to run things.

Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks

#103

Post by Yoric »

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…

Well, many believe that "big tech" (social networks and search engine, I'd say) have essentially replaced traditional news networks. I don't have a clear opinion on this yet, but if that's the case, it makes sense to regulate "big tech" in the same manner as traditional news.

Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks

#104

Post by ptah »

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…

if the postal service could look at people's response to mail and then intentionally mail out copies of popular mail to more people, then this comparison would make sense

Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks

#105

Post by 55555 »

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.

That is indeed quite disfluent... odd.

Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks

#106

Post by amelius »

Yoric wrote: post #103
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…

Well, many believe that "big tech" (social networks and search engine, I'd say) have essentially replaced traditional news networks. I don't have a clear opinion on this yet, but if that's the case, it makes sense to regulate "big tech" in the same manner as traditional news.

Yes, and big tech should similarly be regulated like traditional telecommunications, where subscribers of telco A can call subscribers of telco B without problems (unlike most chat services).

Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks

#107

Post by Yoric »

amelius wrote: post #106
Yoric wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, many believe that "big tech" (social networks and search engine, I'd say) have essentially replaced traditional news networks. I don't have a clear opinion on this yet, but if that's the case, it makes sense to regulate "big tech" in the same manner as traditional news.

Yes, and big tech should similarly be regulated like traditional telecommunications, where subscribers of telco A can call subscribers of telco B without problems (unlike most chat services).

What do you mean?

Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks

#108

Post by amelius »

sgt101 wrote: post #98
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.

But people clearly want to see what's popular in their own bubble. Facebook just gives people what they want.

Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks

#109

Post by amelius »

scotu wrote: post #54
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…

The algorithm is probably the biggest element of it, they are already deciding what you are going to see and what you'll not see, so they put themself in the position of being a lot like an editor. On top of that a phone call and an sms are 1 to few (mostly 1 to 1), facebook posts are 1 to many, this makes the damage exponentially greater...

Yeah, but a personal Wordpress website also is 1-to-many. Where will this end?

Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks

#110

Post by [deleted] »

gopher2 wrote: post #64

So, what's the normative suggestion here? All content on user-generated websites should be moderated for truth and anything edited, editorialized, fictional, or not strictly representing reality should be removed? Or is the idea that only when there is enough public pressure to take down a particularly popular and deceptive video ... then it should be removed? It seems sort of ridiculous that we should engage in acro…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN