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

151–158 of 158 posts

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

#151

Post by solveit »

spunker540 wrote: post #109
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…

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)

> Do you think direct mail should be banned too?

It should, but only because it's incredibly annoying.

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

#152

Post by sjg007 »

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…

While this is irony at its finest, I actually think this is a good idea.

We expect FB and Google to exercise editorial control but they can't for two reasons. The first is the narrative we have subscribed to as a society is that to avoid legal liability because they are "platforms" aka common carriers of other peoples content.. Clearly they didn't make it. Yet, FB and Google can clearly do content regulation when the law requires it (exhibit a.. Nazi propaganda in Germany or illicit images) and even where the law does not (exhibit b.. posts or YouTube content with background music being muted due to copyright claims). Cable TV providers clearly censor ads and content as well. Some of that is upstream of the local cable tv delivery service but in essence they all operate in "cahoots"

The second is the slippery slope is that enforcement in the case of Google and FB is the threat of anti-trust investigations This is the "the Sword of Damocles" that hangs over them. So setting up an independent tribunal is a way to maintain a suspension of disbelief.

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

#153

Post by sjg007 »

zmzrr wrote: post #79
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…

The mass media is going nuts about not controlling the narrative anymore, that's why they want to bury big tech. They will lose in the end, so I don't know if it's worth it to fight.

Murdoch and sons seem to have figured it out. They take the false narratives spun out of social media and rebrand it. In fact their job is probably easier these days since the work of coming up with the spin has been outsourced complete with A/B testing, so they just need to editorialize.

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

#154

Post by kleer001 »

InitialLastName wrote: post #107
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".

Thankfully there's the context of OP's post.

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

#155

Post by [deleted] »

bilbo0s wrote: post #150
ivanbakel wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

[deleted]

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

#156

Post by paulddraper »

sdenton4 wrote: post #144
paulddraper wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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?

Not really. You can quite selectively choose which authors you want to read and which you don't.

That's nothing at all like a newspaper, where everyone gets the same issue.

> Why do publishers and news papers have different sets of responsibilities, by the way?

Because that's how the world works: different people have different jobs.

The newsstand/ISP delivers information which was put in readable form by the printer/website platform syndicated by the news agency/subreddit and authored by the reporter/person.

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

#157

Post by dang »

unearthed wrote: post #145
sdenton4 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Obviously you can't post like this to HN. We've banned this account for breaking the site guidelines.

If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#158

Post by antpls »

MaupitiBlue wrote: post #139
antpls wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "is this the platform responsibility?" debate is long time over and everyone agreed (EU and USA) that it is FB's responsibility. States in which Facebook operates have regulations about internet/advertisements/fake news, and FB must find a solution to comply globally with all regulations. If it was only Facebook, FB would accept any ad as long as someone is willing to pay to display it.

What state has laws about fake news?

Singapore : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21661958
Post reply on HN