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

161–170 of 236 posts

Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks

#161

Post by BaronSamedi »

ianai wrote: post #68
ianai wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook has a huge audience. They make it easy to for one entity to target a huge number of people with customized content per person. And yet people have some weird affinity to believe anything they see on it. If you instead had to work with several hundred facebooks across the world to target everybody it becomes more federated. The local facebooks would have more knowledge and incentive and resources to police th…

I can imagine a few ways this may be legally executed. One is to use the 1800s anti-trust laws to forcibly break up Facebook. Create the smaller entities I described in the process and say “this is the standard for a social media company.” Another would be to endow or reinforce citizens private data as some form of personal property. Give them the legal means to sue and demand payment for any storage of their PI. Mak…

I agree that breaking up these companies is the best option. I can understand the calls for regulation but that is only treating the symptom and will have negative side-effects. The size and position of companies like Facebook leads to a concentration of power which is almost never desirable.

Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks

#163

Post by mgoetzke »

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 can already not post videos of movies I watched on my home TV though. Hollywood is all over that already. Absolute Freedom of speech does not exist anyway. And this is not 'speech' this is not someone talking about a politician it is someone manipulating something he/she stole and misrepresents.

Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks

#164

Post by vharuck »

Macross8299 wrote: post #48
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 thr…

>Where were these hand-wringing articles when Facebook was pioneering the degradation of privacy standards or pushing invasive tracking across the web?

Indifference to privacy becoming vogue often doesn't have immediate and noticeable consequences. Many on HN have the experience and technical knowledge to see the consequences, but they're an exception among the general population. But it's easy to notice when a friend or family member repeats a lie they saw on Facebook.

I'll assume people are reacting to immediate and "obviously bad" consequences. A little more evidence is needed before I go with "hypocritical ulterior motive."

Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks

#165

Post by mgoetzke »

makomk wrote: post #113
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.

It was also a mainstream news story for days that the White House spread a doctored video which was sped up to make it look like a CNN reporter attacked a White House intern. Thing is, it was trivial to verify that wasn't at all true: if you actually compare the speed with the original frame by frame it's not sped up anywhere. The artifacts some reporters claimed were from it being sped up are actually frame rate upc…

How he made it appear does not matter though. The reporter still did not attack anyone.

Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks

#166

Post by moorhosj »

zaroth wrote: post #140
thrusong wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Nancy Pelosi videos tread on propaganda. It's being used to convince people "Wacky Nancy" or whatever Trump calls her is not fit for office, using actual news clips. It's clearly different from parody provided by a comedian on a show known for being a sketch comedy show.

It’s always propaganda when it’s pillorying someone you like, and parody when it’s pillorying someone you don’t. If the video would have been right at home on late night television, it should be right at home on Facebook. Do you think the late night shows aren’t being used to convince people to feel a certain way about Trump? This is the shoe on the other foot, and if doesn’t feel so right, the wrong lesson is to bla…

Comparing two things doesn’t automatically make them the same. When you see a video on late night comedy tv show, you know you are watching a late night comedy tv show. You even opted-in by turning on that particular channel/show, they also share a schedule of when that content will be aired.

Facebook has a mix of real news, fake news and propaganda videos it isn’t nearly as clear.

Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks

#167

Post by mgoetzke »

PixyMisa wrote: post #121
lazugod wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is pinning the video not spreading it?

It's a different video. The one Trump retweeted is undoctored footage of Pelosi stumbling over words, because she actually does that.

And he never does :)

Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks

#168

Post by vharuck »

warp_factor wrote: post #82

that article is pushing the idea that Social networks should be better at policing speech on their platform. As said in other comments pushing for more self policing is the worst thing that could happen for democracy and free-speech. The last thing I want is for a small clique of silicon valley tech execs to decide what I should or should not see on my feed. I see two solutions on this: - Censorship is coming from an…

But isn't "self-policing" the failsafe of free speech? Anyone can share their ideas, no matter how dumb or wrong. Except in certain cases, even deception is allowed. Then everyone else decides what is a good idea worth sharing, or just drivel.

Facebook is a non-government entity. They're "people," too. They can totally decide to stop sharing junk when they notice it. And other people, like the article's author, can ask them to do just that.

Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks

#169

Post by mc32 »

moorhosj wrote: post #166
zaroth wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s always propaganda when it’s pillorying someone you like, and parody when it’s pillorying someone you don’t. If the video would have been right at home on late night television, it should be right at home on Facebook. Do you think the late night shows aren’t being used to convince people to feel a certain way about Trump? This is the shoe on the other foot, and if doesn’t feel so right, the wrong lesson is to bla…

Comparing two things doesn’t automatically make them the same. When you see a video on late night comedy tv show, you know you are watching a late night comedy tv show. You even opted-in by turning on that particular channel/show, they also share a schedule of when that content will be aired. Facebook has a mix of real news, fake news and propaganda videos it isn’t nearly as clear.

People [on the left] claim the daily show (and the like) are how the newer generation’s get their news... so your claim isn’t clear cut as you imply.

Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks

#170

Post by qrbLPHiKpiux »

jpollock wrote: post #155
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.

In the us, tv news is regulated because it is using public frequencies. Newspapers publish lies and propaganda all the time. Ref any supermarket checkout magazine.

Social media takes anyone’s message right to the bottom - the end user - with no editorial gatekeeper.

Today’s problems with tech aren’t tech. They’re all human problems. People forgot and don’t know how to sort through bullshit. If people really rely on Facebook to form opinions, then go vote, America, we have a problem.

Post reply on HN