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

171–180 of 236 posts

Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks

#171

Post by moorhosj »

mc32 wrote: post #169
moorhosj wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

People claim lots of things, that doesn’t make them so. Watching the Daily Show is a programmed event on a comedy channel that people opt-in to. Something popping up in your Facebook feed because a friend posted it or an algorithm chose it is pretty clearly different.

Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks

#172

Post by merpnderp »

“No other media could get away with spreading anything like this...”

Meanwhile several major media sites are claiming the video Trump shared was this same doctored video, when it was merely a montage of regular video clips.

We can’t even begin to have a conversation about censoring private companies without it immediately being used as a political weapon.

Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks

#173

Post by anonymousab »

ng12 wrote: post #84
bfdm wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are people supposed to make that decision if they are not armed with the information needed? If they only see the fake version, how will they know to even question it? Truth matters. News distributers are expected to fact check and should be held accountable when spreading falsehoods. Removing provably false manipulated media is not itself a manipulation. It is a correction.

Agreed, except Facebook is not a news distributor.

They are a de-facto distributor, even if it wasn't their intention to be one.

Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks

#174

Post by whenchamenia »

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…

It should not matter if your views are far from the majority, that is the whole issue.

Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks

#175

Post by oconnor663 »

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?

If a politician gives a 20 minute speech, and I edit together a 1 minute summary of it, is that "altered"? Does it matter whether I chose the clips to make the politician look foolish? Who gets to decide what counts as foolish?

Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks

#177

Post by MarkMc »

_cs2017_ wrote: post #40

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 pe…

My preferred solution is for Facebook to assess whether a video is presented as accurate but has been altered with intent to deceive. If so, it is tagged "This video has been flagged as deceptive. Click here for details".

Yes, from time to time I might disagree with Facebook about the accuracy or intent of a video, but it would be an improvement on the status quo.

Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks

#178

Post by raxxorrax »

mgoetzke wrote: post #163
slg wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I would like to see it anyway.

Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks

#179

Post by raxxorrax »

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…

> If we as a society deem that type of content to be improper

I don't think there is any consent for this.

Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks

#180

Post by raxxorrax »

qrbLPHiKpiux wrote: post #170
jpollock wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

An editor is certainly neither required nor wanted. If you like that, then please read established newspapers and let people have their fun.
Post reply on HN