Facebook Pledges $130M to Fund “Supreme Court” for Content • Hacker News Board

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

#141

Post by sdenton4 » Thu, Dec 12, 2019, 9:19 PM UTC

unearthed wrote: post #55

sdenton4 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're denying the existence of a problem, not offering a solution. Implicitly, this says that you don't value the opinions of people who very strongly believe that there is a problem. It's not a great place to argue from.

> You're denying the existence of a problem, not offering a solution Incorrect. Im saying the solution IS NOT the dogmatic oversight that facebook is pursuing here. Instead the solution is: "The droves of people using facebook are sufficiently large that an organic zeitgeist can emerge without interference" Surely You're NOT suggesting: "Yes we require the dogmatic, bureaucratic, oversight of speech to create harmony…

Many, many people believe that the hands-off approach has, in the fullness of the history that brings us here today, demonstrably failed.

The argument is that we have more violent extremists, not less, and they've been quite successful in using large public platforms to recruit and radicalize new members. The "organic zeitgeist" has had plenty of time to do its thing, and it really hasn't.

You're offering a straw man argument, by way of false dichotomy: kafkaesque hellscape vs total freedom happyland. It's not helpful to the conversation, imo, and doesn't actually engage with the issues at hand. It's polemics, not a solution.

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

#142

Post by edmundsauto » Thu, Dec 12, 2019, 9:24 PM UTC

rumanator wrote: post #128

rayiner wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OP said “ban non-geographically targeted ads.” Besides, the “long history of being manipulated ... with disastrous consequences” is a [citation needed] assertion. Certainly, the thin support for that position doesn’t overcome the fact that it makes total sense to allow targeting ads by geography. There is no point in Trump running ads in Baltimore, or Warren running ads in rural Virginia.

> OP said “ban non-geographically targeted ads.” Yes, and you've made a gross misrepresentation by equating it wi "closing off an entire sector of content to political advertising." It's a very disingenuous take on what was actually said. > Besides, the “long history of being manipulated ... with disastrous consequences” is a [citation needed] assertion. Really? In this day and age are you still trying to turn a blin…

Genuine question - where is the concrete evidence of harm from the interference in the 2016 elections? We hear a lot about how Cambridge Analytica destroyed the political process, or Russia... But what are the facts in evidence for harm?

Put another way: how can we determine actual harm caused, and be sure that it isn't blown out of proportion? (IE Cambridge Analytica playing up their capabilities to get new customers)

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

#143

Post by ivanbakel » Thu, Dec 12, 2019, 9:40 PM UTC

bilbo0s wrote: post #119

wpasc wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think each time Big Tech tries to control the narrative more and more is a step in a direction that is short sighted. I get wanting to pull down literal Nazis and I mostly agree. But scope creep on who is a Nazi and the ever vaguer "hate speech" will spell true trouble as they get even more unclear.

The reason this is happening is becoming more clear. Despite what tech types like us believe and echo to each other on forums like HN, there is the reality of an apathetic environment in which most people live. Most people, most content creators, most content consumers, most people in general, really don't give 2 mosquito dicks about any of the issues I think are important. Privacy from the government? Nope. If you'r…

Surely there should be something disconcerting about being massively disagreed with, and finding that you can't imagine any cause more respectable than pedophiles and fascists?

I agree with you that these things are important, but why do you think so if you can't formulate a good argument for them that doesn't rely on peoples' sympathy for Nazis?

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

#144

Post by sdenton4 » Thu, Dec 12, 2019, 9:48 PM UTC

paulddraper wrote: post #101

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.

And yet, the experience of a social media feed is much closer to a newspaper than a publisher's catalog... Why do publishers and news papers have different sets of responsibilities, by the way?

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

#145

Post by unearthed » Thu, Dec 12, 2019, 9:52 PM UTC

sdenton4 wrote: post #141

unearthed wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You're denying the existence of a problem, not offering a solution Incorrect. Im saying the solution IS NOT the dogmatic oversight that facebook is pursuing here. Instead the solution is: "The droves of people using facebook are sufficiently large that an organic zeitgeist can emerge without interference" Surely You're NOT suggesting: "Yes we require the dogmatic, bureaucratic, oversight of speech to create harmony…

Many, many people believe that the hands-off approach has, in the fullness of the history that brings us here today, demonstrably failed. The argument is that we have more violent extremists, not less, and they've been quite successful in using large public platforms to recruit and radicalize new members. The "organic zeitgeist" has had plenty of time to do its thing, and it really hasn't. You're offering a straw man…

1) Chill w the superflous language. Nobody is impressed with how much debt you've saddled over your phd.

2) You cite nothing substantiating these claims.

Leave it to a woke phd to misrepresent a claim to win an argument.

> total freedom happyland

No you dumb fuck.

Im saying that the process of people sorting out a collective, integrated social morality is going to be complex.

Where the fuck did I say it was going to be easy?

> kafkaesque

Yes, its a big deal. How long do you think the british people are going to put up with their daughters being raped and people being stabbed? Do you think that "acceptance" for Khans woke bullshit will continue into perpetuity? Do you think there's some really mean fucking people who are basting in anger + isolation because they've been pushing out of pleasant society?

Does such a thought seem plausible at all? What do you think happens before a coup of any kind? Someone capable sits it isolation + gets really fucking pissed off.

This is the problem with having discussions with arm-chain intellectuals in a space where they can behave with impunity.

You're happy to attempt to win an argument by misrepresenting my claims. The intelligencia of the bay area is absolutely reprehensible -- and I know, I live here with this bullshit.

Fuck, would I love to have these discussions face to face.

> kafkaesque

Lets sit down and get a coffee and chat over this shit and well see which of us is more capably evil.

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

#146

Post by sdenton4 » Thu, Dec 12, 2019, 9:53 PM UTC

LatteLazy wrote: post #110

WhompingWindows wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

Fwiw, the US has rules on foreign contributions to political campaigns which have already explored these questions in courts, up through the Supremes...

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

#147

Post by smsm42 » Thu, Dec 12, 2019, 9:59 PM UTC

So what happens is that Facebook chooses 11 people and gives them money so that they could make Facebook censorship decisions look like they don't come from Facebook. But since they people in that "court" still are appointed by Facebook, that's all just a shell game. But now they can point at "independent verification" by people they chose to pretend there's some objectivity behind it (even though there can't possibly be).

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

#148

Post by smsm42 » Thu, Dec 12, 2019, 10:07 PM UTC

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.

There's no "better" alternative really - if Facebook censors content - which it absolutely does and which it will be forced to do by politicians even if they didn't want to - then Facebook is also responsible for these censorship decisions. Making a sock puppet to deflect responsibility is a transparent move that is not going to fool anybody. It makes situation slightly worse as it insults the intelligence of the community by implying this transparent trick could work, but otherwise everything stays the same.

In theory, Facebook could figure out a way to have truly independent panel of experts than are non-partisan and aren't beholden to Facebook in any way, but I have no idea how they could do it in practice, and even if they did, it'd backfire on them very quickly as soon as that panel would make a decision that some activist group wouldn't like, as those activists would surely target Facebook and Facebook would have a choice to either annihilate the credibility of the panel by ignoring its decision or face the wrath of activists which the Facebook have proven many times in the past they can't withstand and will have to cave anyway.

So I really don't see any positive outcome here. Once you're in the censorship game, you're in the censorship game, with all that involves.

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

#149

Post by remmargorp64 » Thu, Dec 12, 2019, 10:53 PM UTC

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.

For starters, Facebook could offer a paid version of Facebook that allows people to completely opt out of all ads. I would be happy to pay $4 a month for this option (or maybe something like $30 a year), even though I use adblock to block all your ads anyways.

Also, I would really like to just see my activity feed from all my followed friends in straight up chronological order, with no filtering, dang it.

The way you all display stuff right now is obviously designed so you can sprinkle ads into the feed as if they were actual content. But I don't want to see ads. At all. Period.

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

#150

Post by bilbo0s » Fri, Dec 13, 2019, 12:32 AM UTC

ivanbakel wrote: post #143

bilbo0s wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason this is happening is becoming more clear. Despite what tech types like us believe and echo to each other on forums like HN, there is the reality of an apathetic environment in which most people live. Most people, most content creators, most content consumers, most people in general, really don't give 2 mosquito dicks about any of the issues I think are important. Privacy from the government? Nope. If you'r…

Surely there should be something disconcerting about being massively disagreed with, and finding that you can't imagine any cause more respectable than pedophiles and fascists? I agree with you that these things are important, but why do you think so if you can't formulate a good argument for them that doesn't rely on peoples' sympathy for Nazis?

Because I'm of the opinion that Free Speech is important to protect speech that most people do not like. Not really to protect speech that most people have no problem with in any case.

Why do you think it's important if not to protect speech that most people do not like? I mean, if it's speech or behavior that no one has a problem with, why does it need your protection?