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

What Facebook doesn’t understand about the Facebook walkout

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 46 posts

Re: What Facebook doesn’t understand about the Facebook walkout

#11

Post by hendzen »

Lx1oG-AWb6h_ZG0 wrote: post #4

This is one of the dumbest articles I’ve read about the issue, treating it as a binary good-vs-evil problem instead of critically thinking about the underlying issues and the effects of what they’re actually proposing. I mentioned this in a previous thread, but we absolutely do not want Mark Zuckerberg or his employees to make decisions on what is or isn’t newsworthy. They have far too much power, and not enough inte…

> we absolutely do not want Mark Zuckerberg or his employees to make decisions on what is or isn’t newsworthy.

The problem is that they already ARE making decisions on what is newsworthy. It is not possible for them to be neutral.

Today the FB News Feed algorithm optimizes for user engagement. That is an editorial decision! It just so happens that it results in having the entire population get their news through a skinner box that reinforces and worsens their most harmful biases.

Like it or not, demagogues around the world (not just the US) are exploiting this mechanic to gain power in ways that are harmful to society. Should Facebook be the arbiter of truth? That's the wrong question. They already are. At this point all we can hope is that they choose to arbitrate the truth in a less damaging way.

Re: What Facebook doesn’t understand about the Facebook walkout

#12

Post by VHRanger »

Lx1oG-AWb6h_ZG0 wrote: post #4

This is one of the dumbest articles I’ve read about the issue, treating it as a binary good-vs-evil problem instead of critically thinking about the underlying issues and the effects of what they’re actually proposing. I mentioned this in a previous thread, but we absolutely do not want Mark Zuckerberg or his employees to make decisions on what is or isn’t newsworthy. They have far too much power, and not enough inte…

FB already is making newsworthiness decisions all the time with their recommendation engine.

Being scored low by the algorithm is effectively the same as being censored.

Re: What Facebook doesn’t understand about the Facebook walkout

#13

Post by mongol »

I think Trump should use the White House homepage for his communications. And what he writes on Twitter and Facebook, those platforms should at least be as liable for as if Trump wrote the same thing in an opinion piece in a newspaper. I think AWS and Azure are true "platforms" but Facebook and Twitter are social media. They are more similiar to other media than to technical platforms. I think the buck should end with Zuckerberg for everything expressed on his site.

If this was the case, it might very well be that social media as we know it today would no longer be viable. It might very well be better however. I long for the time the blogosphere was were people expressed themselves online. It was more mature, slower, and more thoughtful.

Re: What Facebook doesn’t understand about the Facebook walkout

#14

Post by jimmaswell »

saos wrote: post #8
jimmaswell wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From Zuckerberg: "I disagree strongly with how the President spoke about this, but I believe people should be able to see this for themselves, because ultimately accountability for those in positions of power can only happen when their speech is scrutinized out in the open." - https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/01/facebook-staff-angry--zucker... It's a perfectly reasonable to keep up things that are a matter of public reco…

> "I disagree strongly with how the President spoke about this, but I believe people should be able to see this for themselves, because ultimately accountability for those in positions of power can only happen when their speech is scrutinized out in the open." That’s pretty fair. But, will that set a precedence of violent posts?

From the president? Maybe, but I'd still think the value of the public record is more important here. From regular users it would still be disallowed.

Instead of this murky de-facto system of different rules for public officials and regular users, maybe we need to have it codified. Accounts owned by public officials have their activity publicly recorded (with edit/deletion attempt history, etc) and with something in the UI indicating it's such a type of account, and a link to a disclaimer visible near all the posts explaining that the post might have TOS violations and doesn't necessarily serve as an example of acceptable behavior for other users. Such protection would go away when their term is over and they'd be able to be banned for past posts (but everything remaining visible), maybe reopened if they're in a position again later on.

Re: What Facebook doesn’t understand about the Facebook walkout

#15

Post by JesusChrist2020 »

"Incitement to riot" is a criminal offense. Every smug rich white Silicon Valley liberal should enjoy your last few days of wealth, privilege and status because the victims of the riots are going to sue you into oblivion and put you in prison! Downvoting will not save you. We're coming for you!

Re: What Facebook doesn’t understand about the Facebook walkout

#16

Post by otterley »

Lx1oG-AWb6h_ZG0 wrote: post #4

This is one of the dumbest articles I’ve read about the issue, treating it as a binary good-vs-evil problem instead of critically thinking about the underlying issues and the effects of what they’re actually proposing. I mentioned this in a previous thread, but we absolutely do not want Mark Zuckerberg or his employees to make decisions on what is or isn’t newsworthy. They have far too much power, and not enough inte…

First of all, it is a mistake to couch the issue as "newsworthiness." It's not about whether or not speech is newsworthy. It's about whether or not to allow a post to be openly displayed and disseminated - even to non-subscribers of the poster - without a disclaimer. The current argument is not whether speech should be quashed; it's about whether it should be annotated, disseminated and/or amplified.

Even if the question were around newsworthiness - which, I emphasize, it isn't -- publishers make decisions all the time as to what is newsworthy and what isn't. Someone has to decide what goes on the front page or how to order stories, whether it be in the form of a newspaper, a TV show, or what's above the fold on a website.

The golden rule when it comes to private property -- which Facebook is -- is "my house, my rules." Mark Zuckerberg, with a complicit Facebook board, has made it abundantly clear whose house it is. He can -- and has -- set whatever rules he wants, subject to the law. At this point, he has made it clear that his rules are to maximize dissemination of the President's communication even at the expense of other legitimate concerns. And it is legitimate to take a contrary position on what those rules should be.

Re: What Facebook doesn’t understand about the Facebook walkout

#17

Post by 013a »

Lx1oG-AWb6h_ZG0 wrote: post #4

This is one of the dumbest articles I’ve read about the issue, treating it as a binary good-vs-evil problem instead of critically thinking about the underlying issues and the effects of what they’re actually proposing. I mentioned this in a previous thread, but we absolutely do not want Mark Zuckerberg or his employees to make decisions on what is or isn’t newsworthy. They have far too much power, and not enough inte…

I agree. Its an impossibly thin and weird line that Facebook has to walk; there are no overarching, simple policies which, when applied unilaterally, would produce an outcome that everyone finds desirable.

I do think that a non-unilateral policy of allowing more lee-way for the accounts of government officials makes sense. Yes, its glorifying violence, and I understand Twitter's decision to hide the tweet, but we also have a right to be apprised of these borderline-insane things that our leaders are saying so we can make more informed decisions when it comes time to vote. Silencing Trump is not productive; more people need to see these things he's saying, and hopefully, make the right decision (for them) when it comes time to re-elect him or not.

I think, to be frank, its a situation similar to the old gun control argument that, when guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns. Whether you agree with that statement or not; when Twitter censors Trump, the only people who won't hear him are Left who are participating in that discussion on the social platforms where he was censored. There are too many communication channels nowadays, and most right-wing citizens already feel so suppressed on Twitter/Facebook that they additionally monitor other platforms, where his message is shared loud and clear, with no censorship.

Additionally, I don't like the symbolism behind the supposition that these private companies are above the government. I may not like the government right now, but Twitter and Facebook should not have the right to censor government officials. You may support Twitter's actions today, but the situation could easily be flipped. The left is more technically inclined today, and most tech leaders are leftists. When the left applies pressure to Twitter, it sticks. It won't always be like this, and we need to set the precedent that at least some tactically useful form of free speech still applies on these platforms, even though they don't have a legal responsibility to uphold it.

Re: What Facebook doesn’t understand about the Facebook walkout

#18

Post by klingonopera »

thundergolfer wrote: post #9
Lx1oG-AWb6h_ZG0 wrote: post #4

This is one of the dumbest articles I’ve read about the issue, treating it as a binary good-vs-evil problem instead of critically thinking about the underlying issues and the effects of what they’re actually proposing. I mentioned this in a previous thread, but we absolutely do not want Mark Zuckerberg or his employees to make decisions on what is or isn’t newsworthy. They have far too much power, and not enough inte…

I assure you that Facebook is both very powerful and very involved in politics. Just the month it came out that their own research found their recommendation systems were engaging people with the far-right. The execs allowed it. It is impossible for Facebook to exist and act outside of politics. It’s a nonsensical idea that they could avoid involvement in political issues given the definition of politics.

I find it ok for Facebook to do something like their "Top stories" based on what their algorithm determines for me.

But I'm somewhat annoyed that "Most recent" doesn't actually sort the news feed chronologically, and also show everything. The algorithm is still doing something there.

Re: What Facebook doesn’t understand about the Facebook walkout

#19

Post by carterklein13 »

jimmaswell wrote: post #14
saos wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "I disagree strongly with how the President spoke about this, but I believe people should be able to see this for themselves, because ultimately accountability for those in positions of power can only happen when their speech is scrutinized out in the open." That’s pretty fair. But, will that set a precedence of violent posts?

From the president? Maybe, but I'd still think the value of the public record is more important here. From regular users it would still be disallowed. Instead of this murky de-facto system of different rules for public officials and regular users, maybe we need to have it codified. Accounts owned by public officials have their activity publicly recorded (with edit/deletion attempt history, etc) and with something in…

I think this is a sensible and easily-enforceable solution. Facebook and Twitter are necessities today and oftentimes (for better or for much, much worse) are where history is being written. I think using these platforms as a highly important person geopolitically should dictate different rules than me, who has like 400 friends from the decade or so I've been on the platform, 90% of whom I haven't spoken to in years.
Post reply on HN