Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 178 posts

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

#61

Post by wasmburger »

cptaj wrote: post #32
baby wrote: post #20

I think that is misdirection. There are two parts that I don't think are contradicted by this article: 1) Facebook, twitter, and other social networks give people a voice and a community. 2) If these platforms are censored in a country, it has a great effect on free speech in the country. Now, there are some good questions related to the article to ask here: a) Are these platforms actually a problem because of the am…

Isn't the algorithm a form of censorship in and of itself? It decides what to show and what to hide. Yes, you can drill down to find what you want, but that will either never happen at scale or might be entirely impractical.

They can't show everything so a filter must be used. They try to show you things similar to what you have liked so you are happy, along with ads related to what you like so you will buy. I can hide/unlike/unfollow things I don't like to tune the filter. How is this complicated? Do people who hate Facebook not understand how to use it? Edit:sp

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

#62

Post by kolbe »

diego wrote: post #24
buboard wrote: 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.

I think, when companies say they support ‘free speech’ they are adopting the stance that they will not punish their users for actions that the US government protects under the first amendment.

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

#64

Post by dredmorbius »

cbcoutinho wrote: post #55
ptest1 wrote: post #21

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

Someone a few days ago linked to this snippet of an interview with Naval Ravikant on Joe Rogan's podcast. Their lack of differentiating themselves from publishers has put them on a slippery slope https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=3661&v=3qHkcs3kG44

What this snippet misses is the fact that FB, YT, G+, and Twitter determine what is presented and offered to users. Algorithm or no, their fingers, hands, feet and bodies are all over the scale.

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

#65

Post by BurningFrog »

msbarnett wrote: post #14
buboard wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair. Though that has more to do with potentially being illegal. The more serious (violation of free speech) thing is political censorship

> Though that has more to do with potentially being illegal. Death threats, and many other forms of hate speech, are illegal in many jurisdictions, and yet that is not used to justify a blanket ban on angry text. > The more serious (violation of free speech) thing is political censorship It is not obvious to me that these things are even separable; to pick but one obvious example, a topless photograph posted by advoc…

> a topless photograph posted by advocates for an equal right for both men and women to be topless in public is clearly political speech.

Sure, but you can state the same opinion with words, and not get censored.

If certain opinions are forbidden from being expressed, it's a very different thing.

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

#66

Post by dahart »

msbarnett wrote: post #3
buboard wrote: post #2

One does not exclude the other

In the abstract, no. But we already know that Facebook excludes free speech: simply attempt to post a photograph containing bare female breasts on Facebook or a Facebook-owned property like Instagram, and it will swiftly be removed for violating “community guidelines”. So Facebook themselves have clearly excluded themselves from the former.

Free speech itself as a legal concept comes with limitations based on community guidelines, including obscenity and pornography.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech#Limitation...

I don’t believe there is any country in the world today for which “free speech” means that anything that can be said is legal and protected, but many people seem to think otherwise based on the name.

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

#67

Post by wasmburger »

taurath wrote: post #59
wasmburger wrote: post #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 somethin…

I spent 2 years trying to “fix” my feed before leaving Facebook altogether. There was no way at the time - the alg would always surface the absolute worst things that anyone I knew would post because the algorithm knew it would get the most responses.

Maybe the section of the AI devoted to you has tagged you as someone who likes outrage. Maybe you have posted some outrage stuff. My experience is opposite from yours.

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

#68

Post by [deleted] »

baddox wrote: post #49
ptest1 wrote: 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 gi…

[deleted]

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

#70

Post by mtgx »

robterrell wrote: post #11

"The problem is that Facebook doesn’t offer free speech; it offers free amplification." Not even that -- make a group for your business or product or band or political group, get people to sign up, and see how far free amplification goes.

It's all pay to play at this point. Even if you've already paid to get a strong following you now have to pay again to reach them, in perpetuity.
Post reply on HN