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

101–110 of 178 posts

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

#101

Post by vanderZwan »

INGELRII wrote: post #60
zachguo wrote: post #5

Sounds like how people argue against printing press in 15th century. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110119/05022912725/fifte...

If printing press in the 15th century is the analogy, we will have Thirty Years' War ahead of us. Martin Luther was one of the first political troublemakers in the printing press era. He used printed pamphlets to spread his message. His use of language was extremely hateful and vulgar. Martin Luther would have been perfect for Twitter or FB. ... Martin Luther @MartinLuther >“A natural donkey, which carries sacks to t…

See also Clay Shirky's thoughts on this topic[0]

> So, what happens when a medium suddenly puts a lot of new ideas into circulation? Now, this isn't just a contemporaneous question. This is something we've faced several times over the last few centuries. When the telegraph came along, it was clear that it was going to globalize the news industry. What would this lead to? Well, obviously, it would lead to world peace. The television, a medium that allowed us not just to hear but see, literally see, what was going on elsewhere in the world, what would this lead to? World peace. (Laughter) The telephone? You guessed it: world peace. Sorry for the spoiler alert, but no world peace. Not yet. Even the printing press, even the printing press was assumed to be a tool that was going to enforce Catholic intellectual hegemony across Europe. Instead, what we got was Martin Luther's 95 Theses, the Protestant Reformation, and, you know, the Thirty Years' War.

> All right, so what all of these predictions of world peace got right is that when a lot of new ideas suddenly come into circulation, it changes society. What they got exactly wrong was what happens next. The more ideas there are in circulation, the more ideas there are for any individual to disagree with. More media always means more arguing. That's what happens when the media's space expands. And yet, when we look back on the printing press in the early years, we like what happened. We are a pro-printing press society.

We'll adapt to the new medium of the internet. Hopefully without a 30 years war though.

[0] https://www.ted.com/talks/clay_shirky_how_the_internet_will_...

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

#102

Post by dredmorbius »

firasd wrote: post #81
dredmorbius wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Last I checked, China are literally a government. That said, I find weaknesses across the board with conventional arguments and talking points concerning speech. It really is complicated. And there is considerable previous thought, precedent, and philosophy that's been forgotten or ignored.

China is not threatening to arrest and try basketball players in the US. Their main threat is loss of financial income to the NBA.

Among the conventional talking points that's flawed.

NBA's interest in China is at least $500 million and may clear $1 billion. That's consequence-inducing.

https://www.si.com/nba/2019/10/07/daryl-morey-rockets-china-...

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

#103

Post by firasd »

dredmorbius wrote: post #102
firasd wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China is not threatening to arrest and try basketball players in the US. Their main threat is loss of financial income to the NBA.

Among the conventional talking points that's flawed. NBA's interest in China is at least $500 million and may clear $1 billion. That's consequence-inducing. https://www.si.com/nba/2019/10/07/daryl-morey-rockets-china-...

Seems like you and the article agree with me here (the consequences are financial, not imprisonment for the average NBA player.) And if financial consequences count as a free speech issue to you, then you agree with me that free speech isn't just about judicial arrest.

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

#104

Post by tombsheets »

Mountain_Skies wrote: post #79
bhupy wrote: post #69

Any form of media that earns its profit from viewership and selling advertising, including broadcast and cable news and news radio, is optimized for outrage. That's what attracts the eyeballs. The "algorithmic" part is irrelevant.

Sex attracts eyeballs too though it's a bit more difficult to sell Kraft Cheese Singles using sex.

Kraft singles in your area!

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

#106

Post by ineedasername »

awinter-py wrote: post #97

I assume this author prefers techcrunch's megaphone to facebook's because TC has an editorial tone and picks their experts. But wading through a crowd to get your information is the new normal. The era of edited information is over. There are pros and cons but this genie isn't going back in its bottle.

I'm not so sure that era if over, it's simply changed mechanisms. Instead of direct moderation in the form of editorial boards working at the behest of corporate owners, it's more indirect in the form of algorithms made by developers at the behest of corporate owners. Decisions are still made that present some information or viewpoints and not others. The flavor of bias will likely be very different: in the past, one was the political vector. In the algorithmic method such things are a side effect of a "click more" bias.

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

#107

Post by Udik »

This is all true, and so obvious that one feels like slapping one's forehead. The algorithms are content-neutral, but they are based on the implicit judgement of the users: and the users engage more with what is extraordinary and outrageous.

So we're in a Black Mirror-esque moment in which the nervous system of humanity is suffering of an anxiety disorder, possibly psychosis, caused by the subtle but constant amplification of emotionally negative thoughts and paranoid ideation.

I think the system needs some form of biologically inspired attenuation mechanism, again based purely on engagement rather than content: for example reducing the amplification of nodes that are "always on", or reducing dissemination past a certain level (WhatsApp has already limited the number of forwards of a message, I think). The problem with these solutions is how to reconcile them with the commercial purpose of the platform.

Probably we'll end up building some resistance, partly cultural and partly enforced by laws; hopefully before it provokes some major catastrophe.

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

#108

Post by dpflan »

chrisseaton wrote: post #93
Mountain_Skies wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sex attracts eyeballs too though it's a bit more difficult to sell Kraft Cheese Singles using sex.

I think they're just called 'Kraft Singles' - they aren't cheese, even by American definitions!

That's interesting - FDA forced Kraft the name change due to the ingredients.

> https://web.archive.org/web/20110110185442/http://www.fda.go...

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

#109

Post by AmericanChopper »

SolaceQuantum wrote: post #99
dahart wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I was always under the impression free speech advocacy is the spirit of unlimited speech and not the literal word of law in speech. For example, I recall lots of controversy that is the deplatforming of various alt-right advocates and speakers (Sargon of Akkad for example, or 8chan, or the banning of various subreddits). And while it is literally legal for a private entity to no longer want to service parties it does…

Free speech is a value as much as it is a legal concept (and a rather foundational value in the US at least). People who don’t want to engage in discussion about the importance of free speech as a cultural value will often try to reframe the debate to be an entirely legal one, as that’s open to much less discussion.

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

#110

Post by awinter-py »

ineedasername wrote: post #106
awinter-py wrote: post #97

I assume this author prefers techcrunch's megaphone to facebook's because TC has an editorial tone and picks their experts. But wading through a crowd to get your information is the new normal. The era of edited information is over. There are pros and cons but this genie isn't going back in its bottle.

I'm not so sure that era if over, it's simply changed mechanisms. Instead of direct moderation in the form of editorial boards working at the behest of corporate owners, it's more indirect in the form of algorithms made by developers at the behest of corporate owners. Decisions are still made that present some information or viewpoints and not others. The flavor of bias will likely be very different: in the past, one…

Agree with you that algos & crowd data are taking up some of the slack.

But editors are involved before & during the composition of a piece, and can check for things like tone and fact checking. Editors aim for a consistent minimum quality level for everything under their masthead. Algos & votes are trying to do this job after the fact with fewer resources and no consistent standard.

Not sure if the old newspaper model is more trustworthy, or even more effective at surfacing critical information, but you don't have to wade through as much filth to stay informed.

Post reply on HN