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

Facebook says it has removed promotion of anti-quarantine events

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 595 posts

Re: Facebook says it has removed promotion of anti-quarantine events

#251

Post by tjr225 »

happytoexplain wrote: post #235
dmix wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is where the pyramid makes more sense than left/right. This is authoritarianism/centralization top of the pyramid, where people think they know what's best for other people and a top-down approach to "fixing stupid" is the best solution. I personally think it's okay/normal for there to be idiots in society and trying to fix stupid by stopping them from protesting via opaque big tech companies moderation policies…

>I'd much rather have some stupid people protesting than have FB/outrage mobs driving what is okay to protest about. Note how dramatically you understate one side and overstate the other by your choice of wording.

I agree with your sentiment but one side is trying to dictate what is acceptable- the other is not.

Re: Facebook says it has removed promotion of anti-quarantine events

#252

Post by dmix »

happytoexplain wrote: post #235
dmix wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is where the pyramid makes more sense than left/right. This is authoritarianism/centralization top of the pyramid, where people think they know what's best for other people and a top-down approach to "fixing stupid" is the best solution. I personally think it's okay/normal for there to be idiots in society and trying to fix stupid by stopping them from protesting via opaque big tech companies moderation policies…

>I'd much rather have some stupid people protesting than have FB/outrage mobs driving what is okay to protest about. Note how dramatically you understate one side and overstate the other by your choice of wording.

The outrage mob is free to protest all they want. Or to freely speak. I don't see how this group would differ?

I merely used stupid here to make a point, to generalize or pander even, it's hardly just 'stupid' that people try to control. That misses the point entirely.

Regardless the other commenter already noted the very important distinction. I’m not trying to control the mob or define who or what is stupid using some top down hierarchy of wrongthink (trying is the key word here, I could rant about the costs of control and false positives vs the efficacy of FB events, ignoring the large existing willing audiences they always tapped into, and Russia spending a few hundred K in a multibillion dollar election, but I’ve fought that war enough times - the philosophy of how to deal with society in general is what we’re discussing).

Re: Facebook says it has removed promotion of anti-quarantine events

#253

Post by wyager »

CryptoPunk wrote: post #128
wyager wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I don't endorse this state of affairs, the federal government has been putting constraints and obligations on private (especially commercial) speech for decades.

Only commercial speech. Private non-commercial speech has been pretty broadly protected by the First Amendment.

Commercial speech (I.e. Facebook’s censorship of material on its advertising platform) is obviously what’s in question here.

Re: Facebook says it has removed promotion of anti-quarantine events

#254

Post by dchichkov »

duchenne wrote: post #155

I guess it is easy to dismiss the message from ordinary people, since they do not express themselves as well as the professional speakers we are used to listen to. If instead of saying "I want a haircut.", they would say like Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." would they be taken more seriously? In the movie versio…

It is a risk to let the virus burn through uncontrolled. You might get outcome similar to the second wave of Spanish Flu - https://www.history.com/news/spanish-flu-second-wave-resurge...

Evolutionary pressure on the virus should be towards a "wimpy virus", not a virus that "has the power to kill a perfectly healthy young man or woman within 24 hours of showing the first signs of infection".

And yes, it is important to balance the economic damage and public health risk. And it is important to take into consideration that there is a public health risk from economic damage.

In practice, the solution is probably pretty simple. The economy should be reopened in a controlled manner, in a few months. Sport events, concerts, conferences should stay closed, until there are either: antivirals, herd immunity or vaccines.

Re: Facebook says it has removed promotion of anti-quarantine events

#255

Post by wyager »

aclsid wrote: post #112
wyager wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, like China using its influence over the WHO to mislead about the nature of the outbreak within its borders and exclude Taiwan from the international health community. I'm more worried about that than some powerless randos who are mad about the massive QALY loss we're currently going through.

[flagged]

> Nobody has excluded Taiwan from anything

https://mobile.twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1243949792985...

Re: Facebook says it has removed promotion of anti-quarantine events

#256

Post by kfrzcode »

staticassertion wrote: post #213
abnry wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most people sensibly realize that a lock-down in the face of a pandemic is not a regression in our fundamental rights as US citizens, but just a temporary measure to save lives. The problem is that it may not be temporary due to legal creep. See: U.S. Patriot Act.

Very little about this feels like the Patriot Act. I also don't really see why the government would want to tank its economy. I mean, I can think of some really out there reasons, but I don't really feel it's worth entertaining given the far more reasonable reason for lock-in during a pandemic. edit: When I say 'this' I mean enforced lock in, specifically.

What feelings did you feel in October 2001?

Re: Facebook says it has removed promotion of anti-quarantine events

#257

Post by pacala »

phakding wrote: post #221
megavolcano wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Paraphrasing Dr. Birx: "There are other countries that if you had a pre-existing condition, and let's say the virus caused you to go to the ICU and then have a heart or kidney problem, some countries are recording that as a heart issue or a kidney issue and not a COVID-19 death. The intent is ... if someone dies with COVID-19 we are counting that." Paraphrasing mostly, but this is Dr. Birx admitting that the governme…

That's how that works. Take for example, HIV. Nobody dies of HIV, but because HIV causes immunodeficiency, you can die because of common cold or flu. That doesn't mean the person died because of common cold, they died because of HIV/AIDS. Similarly if you have type 1 diabetes and you get infected with corona, you probably died with diabetic complications, but without corona you would have been totally fine. Not sure…

FWIW, that's the exact same point I made in the GP, with s/HIV/old age/ and s/flu/covid/.

Re: Facebook says it has removed promotion of anti-quarantine events

#258

Post by kfrzcode »

staticassertion wrote: post #167
duchenne wrote: post #155

I guess it is easy to dismiss the message from ordinary people, since they do not express themselves as well as the professional speakers we are used to listen to. If instead of saying "I want a haircut.", they would say like Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." would they be taken more seriously? In the movie versio…

> If instead of saying "I want a haircut.", they would say like Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." would they be taken more seriously? Most people sound more like the latter than the former. If people were saying "We have a need for haircuts etc, this is serious", they'd get a lot more consideration than some appea…

Who do we trust, when everyone is pointing fingers at each other?

Re: Facebook says it has removed promotion of anti-quarantine events

#259

Post by staticassertion »

kfrzcode wrote: post #256
staticassertion wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very little about this feels like the Patriot Act. I also don't really see why the government would want to tank its economy. I mean, I can think of some really out there reasons, but I don't really feel it's worth entertaining given the far more reasonable reason for lock-in during a pandemic. edit: When I say 'this' I mean enforced lock in, specifically.

What feelings did you feel in October 2001?

Not much, I was a child.

I think it would be sort of a waste of time to compare 9/11 to Covid with regards to government overreach. Off the bat, the threat is of a completely different nature, we understand the threat in a completely different way, the threat is taking place within our borders and, of course, globally.

The measures are not broad, relatively. They are explicitly intended to be short term. They are being discussed out in the open.

I don't know, I could probably spend the whole night listing differences but it's so obvious I really don't think I will. Unless you're simple enough to boil both responses to "well it's a thing that a government did", idk, the similarities end super quickly.

Re: Facebook says it has removed promotion of anti-quarantine events

#260

Post by staticassertion »

kfrzcode wrote: post #258
staticassertion wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If instead of saying "I want a haircut.", they would say like Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." would they be taken more seriously? Most people sound more like the latter than the former. If people were saying "We have a need for haircuts etc, this is serious", they'd get a lot more consideration than some appea…

Who do we trust, when everyone is pointing fingers at each other?

Ah, I skimmed your comment history. I'm opting out of this conversation. I think we disagree too much to find common ground here.
Post reply on HN