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

Facebook Pledges $130M to Fund “Supreme Court” for Content

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 158 posts

Re: Facebook Pledges $130M to Fund “Supreme Court” for Content

#101

Post by paulddraper »

LatteLazy wrote: post #64

In fairness, here in the UK at least, the print media are going nuts about Facebook and Google failing to stop fake news and politicians' lies. Coincidentally they're bashing their competitors for something they themselves do just as much, make of that what you will... That is one reason fb (and maybe Google too and twitter and whoever else) are donating: make an independent sock puppet, they can decide and you just…

"Print media" are news organizations though, right?

Facebook and Google are platforms, analogous to a printing house. They let anybody publish their opinions, without endorsement.

You wouldn't go nuts at HaperCollins for printing Mein Kampf, or a bookstore/library for distributing it.

Re: Facebook Pledges $130M to Fund “Supreme Court” for Content

#102

Post by dang »

[deleted] wrote: post #98
pesenti wrote: post #23

Hey I am a Facebook employee and I am really confused by all the comments here. Really feels like a "Damned if you do/Damned if you don't" situation. Can anybody actually suggest a better alternative? Not saying there isn't one, I am just not seeing one being proposed.

[deleted]

That crosses into personal attack and is not ok here.

If people get harangued for showing up and mentioning their employer, that will only disincentivize them and others to participate on topics they know a lot about. That will make HN strictly worse.

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

Re: Facebook Pledges $130M to Fund “Supreme Court” for Content

#103

Post by JumpCrisscross »

zmzrr wrote: post #84
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can anybody actually suggest a better alternative? Ban non-geographically targeted political ads. Create a public repository of all political ads. Creating a puppet entity and calling it a court is dishonest and insulting. (The only proper solution, of course, is breaking up Facebook into, at the very least, Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp. Concentrated market power is the fundamental problem.)

How would breaking up FB into Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp help with this at all? They don't even share ad inventory. It looks like you're out to hurt the company and that's it.

> How would breaking up FB into Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp help with this at all?

Moderation policy is an axis of competition. Letting each platform explore moderation systems (a) let’s us compare results, (b) reduces the damage a single company’s bad policies can inflict, (c) and gives users on both sides alternatives if they disagree.

Re: Facebook Pledges $130M to Fund “Supreme Court” for Content

#105

Post by riazrizvi »

gonational wrote: post #48
riazrizvi wrote: post #6

Far better* than the alternative, a transparent process to decide what is acceptable content on social media that is managed by the government, you know, democratically. At least this way Facebook owns the process from the get go, it’s the purest form of ‘regulatory capture’. Just imagine if technology companies had to adhere to publishing standard like broadcasters and journalists do, because of regulations. All tha…

In the United States of America we already have something like this, it’s called the 1st Amendment in the Constitution. Since Facebook enjoys the privilege of being classified as a “public square”, they do not have the legal right to censor content at all, unless the content is illegal (threats, etc.). This is not currently being enforced. Imagine being so oppressed that your ego feels the need to down-vote this comm…

1. We also have a Federal Communication Commission which regulates to prevent information broadcasters from abusing their power.

2. > Imagine being so oppressed that your ego feels the need to down-vote this comment :(

I don't have the ability to downvote replies. I notice too that your comment has not been edited, so you must have written it at the same time you originally posted before anyone could have upvoted or downvoted you. Why don't you do a quick edit, for appearances sake...

Re: Facebook Pledges $130M to Fund “Supreme Court” for Content

#106

Post by JumpCrisscross »

rayiner wrote: post #82
jmedefind wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Traditional media political ads can't micro-target people that are more likely get sucked into their made up "facts" and conspiracy theories. They also are broadly broadcast so that they can be dis-proven and discussed. Instead they are hidden away only shown to people that won't question it. If facebook wants to do political ads then it needs to disconnect them from targeting, publish them for public display, publis…

I’d put it differently: targeted ads allow campaigns to do more with less by focusing on people who are more likely to be receptive to their messages. That’s a valuable thing that shouldn’t be prohibited.

> targeted ads allow campaigns to do more with less by focusing on people who are more likely to be receptive to their messages

Fair point. I suppose targeting could be balanced against a public cool-down period.

So you can randomly target people in the district now. Or, make your targeted ad publicly available for N days before it goes out. This would let the public see it, check it, and potentially respond before the damage is done.

No censorship. Just a head start for the public if a campaign wants to target.

Re: Facebook Pledges $130M to Fund “Supreme Court” for Content

#107

Post by InitialLastName »

kleer001 wrote: post #15

The forest was shrinking but the trees kept voting for the axe as its handle was made of wood and they thought it was one of them.

In the absence of any context, adages like this don't add anything to the conversation. Every reader who encounters it will nod and say "yes, that's so true of the other side".

Re: Facebook Pledges $130M to Fund “Supreme Court” for Content

#109

Post by spunker540 »

jmedefind wrote: post #68
rayiner wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree strongly with closing off an entire sector of content to political advertising. It seems like the goal, or at least the unintentional effect, is to reinforce the traditional media’s monopoly on political discourse.

Traditional media political ads can't micro-target people that are more likely get sucked into their made up "facts" and conspiracy theories. They also are broadly broadcast so that they can be dis-proven and discussed. Instead they are hidden away only shown to people that won't question it. If facebook wants to do political ads then it needs to disconnect them from targeting, publish them for public display, publis…

Do you think direct mail should be banned too? That is the original microtargeting platform, and is a $44bn industry (so only recently surpassed by Facebook in $ terms)

Re: Facebook Pledges $130M to Fund “Supreme Court” for Content

#110

Post by LatteLazy »

WhompingWindows wrote: post #92
LatteLazy wrote: post #64

In fairness, here in the UK at least, the print media are going nuts about Facebook and Google failing to stop fake news and politicians' lies. Coincidentally they're bashing their competitors for something they themselves do just as much, make of that what you will... That is one reason fb (and maybe Google too and twitter and whoever else) are donating: make an independent sock puppet, they can decide and you just…

Why not just go Twitter's route and ban political advertisements? Then you can still sell the money-making sugar and diet pills without the poison of politics.

It's not a bad idea, I'd actually favour it myself because "screw all this noise", you know?

But there are a few issues.

First, practically, you now have to decide what is "political". Is an ad for abortion services political? What about the NRAs latest membership campaign? Or a gun safety campaign? Lots of things are political to at least someone. So who decides what's political? You're still in something of a mess. And you technically have to ban ads that are entirely factually true now!

Similarly, even if you can stop the ad next to a celeb tweet being political, can you stop the same buyers paying celebs to Tweet fake news directly or Russian bots creating 10,000 accounts and tweeting fake news? Will you go through @Potus tweets and cut out the fake news? Suddenly the Liberal media is eating trump babies.

Second, it doesn't solve your core problem: traditional media, from the guardian to fox, will now attack you for being anti free speech (AND for every time an ad gets through your filter, that looks like it shouldn't). They don't actually care about whether you publish fake news. They publish it. They just want you to die. Plus now you've offended your freedom loving users, and alienated the politicos relating you. Maybe under the 1st amendment US politicians can't FORCE firms to take their ads. But they can audit them, drag them I front of Congress, cut net neutrality so ISPs eat their profits etc.

Ultimately, its down to users to filter their media and fact check it. It always has been. There was never a golden age where newspapers reported facts in order of importance and politicians were honest and policy fact driven. But no one wants to admit that. Facebook made that mistake, it was reported as "Facebook will publish fake news, eat babies, fuck your wife"

Post reply on HN