Live data from Hacker News

Facebook isn’t free speech, it’s algorithmic amplification optimized for outrage

techcrunch.com

41–50 of 178 posts

Re: Facebook isn’t free speech, it’s algorithmic amplification optimized for outrage

#41
post #21

Comment deleted because this doesn’t appear to be the right place to discuss nuanced issues about Facebook.

I have deleted all friends and everything from Facebook and I still get almost non-stop recommendations from Facebook with clickbait videos and friend suggestions for social media personalities that I have no interests in. They should not be trying to push crap on me like this and I find it disgusting.

Why are you even on Facebook?

Re: Facebook isn’t free speech, it’s algorithmic amplification optimized for outrage

#42
post #29

Why would Facebook have anything to do with free speech? This title sounds as "strange" as: requiring a driver license is not in contradiction with the right to travel. Well, yes, ok, but that's kind of trivial because everybody (except a bunch of truly insane people) agree with that.

Zuckerberg just gave a talk on the importance of free speech, referenced in the first paragraph -

https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2019/10/mark-zuckerberg-stands-...

Re: Facebook isn’t free speech, it’s algorithmic amplification optimized for outrage

#43
post #24
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You're not entitled to a platform for shouting out loud You voluntarily subscribe on social media though. Nobody is forcing you to hear their noise

Right. Nothing to do with free speech.

people are of course not entitled to it, but, if it didnt have anything to do with free speech, would people want to censor it?

Re: Facebook isn’t free speech, it’s algorithmic amplification optimized for outrage

#45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Simple: because they’re too big

Are you suggesting that the laws should be changed to limit the political freedom of some companies? If so, what would be your criteria for determining which companies this would apply to?

When they're so big that no competition can challenge them.

My personal opinion is that Facebook should be broken up, but social media remain unregulated, since a ban on lies only rewards the most skilled liars, whose statements can fool the evaluators.

Re: Facebook isn’t free speech, it’s algorithmic amplification optimized for outrage

#46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you suggesting that the laws should be changed to limit the political freedom of some companies? If so, what would be your criteria for determining which companies this would apply to?

When they get too big.

I appreciate the snark, but I'll just say anyway that I'm actually asking what are the factors that determine when a company is "too big"?

Re: Facebook isn’t free speech, it’s algorithmic amplification optimized for outrage

#47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Simple: because they’re too big

Are you suggesting that the laws should be changed to limit the political freedom of some companies? If so, what would be your criteria for determining which companies this would apply to?

the self-preservation instict of states would dictate that they will limit them when they threaten the power of the government.

Re: Facebook isn’t free speech, it’s algorithmic amplification optimized for outrage

#48
Don't people know how to use Facebook? There's no outrage on my newsfeed because I've eliminated/unfollowed/hidden it. My cool friends and family are left, I'm reading some pretty interesting groups I like, and I try not to argue/provoke anyone when I make comments. This doesn't inhibit my speech, it only makes me pay attention to tone. I wish the people who hate Facebook would get off it and then talk about something else that interests them.

Re: Facebook isn’t free speech, it’s algorithmic amplification optimized for outrage

#49
post #21

Comment deleted because this doesn’t appear to be the right place to discuss nuanced issues about Facebook.

Isn’t this just a natural consequence of Facebook being huge and having a huge amount of influence in the world? So naturally people are going to blame Facebook for things they don’t like that Facebook has a lot of influence on, and that will probably include people from different political backgrounds. You seem to mock that or find it ridiculous, but it seems perfectly reasonable to me. Both of those examples you give could very easily be true.

As for it being impossible for Facebook to win, well yeah, maybe you’re right. Maybe we shouldn’t have any individual media companies with so much power.

Re: Facebook isn’t free speech, it’s algorithmic amplification optimized for outrage

#50
I’m more interested in why Facebook is marketing their platform to be about free speech.

Is it a defensive move against potential regulation?

- e.g. “if you regulate us, you’re taking away peoples right to free Speech”

Post reply on HN