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

201–210 of 236 posts

Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks

#201

Post by chillacy »

golergka wrote: post #137
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…

> every social media platform Word "every" implies that there are a lot of them in more or less equal competition, but there aren't. The issue here is monopoly: Facebook and Twitter have too much influence. Social media should go through process of federalisation and become like email and websites, so that every user can consume content hosted by different companies and each of those companies can determine it's own…

You mean like reddit and voat? Or as if each subreddit were its own company with some open protocol for cross posting? Or do reddit Twitter fb HN all have to support cross posting?

Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks

#202

Post by chillacy »

hirundo wrote: post #28

A partial distributed solution would be for trusted sites to vouch for a hash of the video file, and the browser to be configured to flag or filter untrusted content. E.g. NYT, the DNC, Pelosi's own site, etc., would flag a hash of a file as valid. Those sites would be aggregated into a web of trust. Users subscribe to nodes of that web, e.g. I trust reporter A, celebrity B, newspaper C, advocacy group D ... and thei…

I’ve thought of it but it doesn’t allow news sites to remix the content into edits. Maybe if you did some sort of content based hashing which is sensitive to playback speed and pitch but not added compression or cropping?

Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks

#203

Post by astazangasta »

rlt wrote: post #26

A bit ironic coming from Kara, who jumped on social media to condemn the Covington Catholic students before the whole story was out, but at least she admitted her mistake https://twitter.com/karaswisher/status/1087443815269584897

How does the NY Times have a leg to stand on complaining about disparaging videos of any sort when they released this homophobic cartoon about Trump and Putin? https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/25/opinion/trump-bites-putin...

Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks

#204

Post by mindslight »

mises wrote: post #183
fragmede wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't message my friends on Snapchat from Instagram, but I can call my friends on T-Mobile and ATT from Verizon. Phone companies shenanigans go back a long way, so there are more than a few lawsuits involved, in order to get to our current state for calling.

That's a nonsensical comparison. Phones all have one purpose and mechanism: voice calling. Instagram is based around a public photo-blog. Snapchat is ephemeral photo-mesaging. You would be requiring social media sites to replicate each other's functionality. If I want to send a message to a twitter user, can it be longer than 140 characters? What if I am john.doe one one platform but you have the same name on another…

It's quite amazing how the purported "free market" viewpoint has an unwavering faith in companies for getting things right, except for when imagining having to comply with any sort of mandate.

A good faith interpretation of interoperability is that any service simply has to publish an equivalent API that allows interacting with "its" users in the service's own data model/paradigm. The market of competitors will then happily sort out the details of how to smooth the gaps.

Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks

#205

Post by [deleted] »

Barrin92 wrote: post #74
chias wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't prefer he become the arbiter of speech. I'd prefer the government would [...] hold him accountable for the damage that lies and misinformation cause on his platform I'm understanding you correctly, you believe that Zuckerberg should be held liable for untruthful content hosted on its platform, but you also believe that Zuckerberg should not be allowed to choose what content is hosted on its platform. How do…

I think the platform should be held liable if it causes damage to individuals by spreading false information about them. For example we could start by handing out fines to platforms if they do not remove damaging or false information in timely manner. I don't think the platform needs to go entirely, I just think it needs to get an incentive, financially for starters, if it fails to adhere to standards set by legislat…

[deleted]

Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks

#207

Post by chias »

Barrin92 wrote: post #74
chias wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't prefer he become the arbiter of speech. I'd prefer the government would [...] hold him accountable for the damage that lies and misinformation cause on his platform I'm understanding you correctly, you believe that Zuckerberg should be held liable for untruthful content hosted on its platform, but you also believe that Zuckerberg should not be allowed to choose what content is hosted on its platform. How do…

I think the platform should be held liable if it causes damage to individuals by spreading false information about them. For example we could start by handing out fines to platforms if they do not remove damaging or false information in timely manner. I don't think the platform needs to go entirely, I just think it needs to get an incentive, financially for starters, if it fails to adhere to standards set by legislat…

In your ideal case, lets say that Facebook identifies some content that it believes is spreading false information about somebody. Should Facebook be allowed to remove it?

If no: Facebook is being fined for not taking an action that it is not allowed to take, which I can't imagine you are advocating for.

If yes: Facebook is now the arbiter of what information gets to be seen (on Facebook), which you didn't want.

A third option, of course, would be to let the government (all governments?) decide when something should be removed from Facebook, but frankly I think this is the worst option of the three.

I suspect that you meant liability in cases when something is "clearly" untrue, so my comments likely come off as pedantry. In cases like this video it's very easy to make that determination. But when it isn't so clear cut, there will have to be judgement calls, and if we're talking actual liability then someone has to be empowered make them. Who gets to make these judgement calls? Either Facebook, the US Government, any government including the ones that you don't like, or maybe some supposedly non-biased third party. None of these options sound at all good to me. I don't know what the answer is, I just want to point out that whatever it is, if it even exists, it isn't as simple as that.

Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks

#208

Post by moorhosj »

mises wrote: post #184
moorhosj wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Clips from such comedy shows pop up out-of-context in the recommended bar in you tube. Did I turn on a channel?

And those clips clearly show the channel’s logo. So yes, you know what channel it’s from. Either way, this is a discussion of Facebook.

Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks

#209

Post by _cs2017_ »

freewilly1040 wrote: post #187
_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…

It’s not as though you can use the magic p word and then what you did is parody. What’s parody and what’s not is indeed a difficult line to define, but it’s not a new problem or a problem that we lack prior art for.

> it’s not a new problem or a problem that we lack prior art for.

The prior art I'm aware of comes from the copyright, trademark, and defamation laws, but the definitions developed there are so vague that it can take a few months in court (and thousands of dollars) to decide whether something is a parody / satire. Here we need a rule that can applied within hours, at a very low cost. So I'm not sure how we can adapt existing legal definitions to banning videos on the internet.

Could you describe in a bit more detail what exactly you propose?

Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks

#210

Post by furgooswft13 »

jccalhoun wrote: post #158
zaroth wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s amazing how hard it is to get someone to believe something counter to their baseline assumption. People “know” Trump spread the video, even though it’s simple irrefutable fact that he did not. The media is often responsible for amplifying and distorting an act to the point where the original act and actor are indistinguishable. Kind of exactly like what happened in the doctored video. This is perhaps an incredib…

>IMO the media does this against Trump pervasively and highly effectively, to the point where it is nearly impossible to distinguish what Trump may have actually said, forget about what he meant. >I’d say the Charlottesville comments are probably the most famous example of this. Could you explain why this is an example?

https://blog.dilbert.com/2019/04/30/the-fine-people-hoax-fun...
Post reply on HN