161–170 of 174 posts
Can I ask an honest question: For those of your that aren't satisfied with his response, what do you want Facebook to do? I haven't really been following this particular news story but I've been seeing a lot of anger against Facebook here and even on my LinkedIN feed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A lot of freedom of speech policies and preferences, including US criminal law, make exceptions for speech that is likely to incite imminent violence. Look up the "true threat" doctrine. I'm not surprised that HN sentiment has a similar exception.
I am pretty sure US free speech exceptions do not prohibit threats by government to deploy the military against people, even if that is the very embodiment of a true threat that is likely to incite imminent violence. But HN community is not against that. You can have a news article about Nation X declaring intention to send an army to against Y if people think Y deserve it. People in general love violence and encoura…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am pretty sure US free speech exceptions do not prohibit threats by government to deploy the military against people, even if that is the very embodiment of a true threat that is likely to incite imminent violence. But HN community is not against that. You can have a news article about Nation X declaring intention to send an army to against Y if people think Y deserve it. People in general love violence and encoura…
Targeting own population with military is unconstitutional though, with just a few exceptions.
A peaceful protest (this should be universally agreed on as a very bad target for military use).
Rioters that burn cars and loot stores.
White supremacists marching in the street.
Exact same actions as any above but we call it terrorism.
US citizens doing terrorism but which is indistinguishable from regular crime.
US citizens doing terrorism, where military weapons like bombs are used (we could also split this up based on what reason the terrorist have).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It can equally well be used as an example of why hate speech should be outlawed rather than moderated.
Regrettably it isn’t that clear cut. While hate is illegal—and rightfully so—racists, bigots and war mongers can and do find ways to spread their hate with legal means. This includes shorthands, dog whistles, framing and tones, etc.[1] I don’t think we will ever be able to conceive a legal framework that can catch all these as hate speech. So we need moderation along side criminalization of hate speech. 1: I recommen…
Then why would Facebook be able to conceive a moderation framework that can catch all these? The underlying problem to be solved is the same, it has just been removed from democratic scrutiny.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Targeting own population with military is unconstitutional though, with just a few exceptions.
We can define Nation X as the US and Target Y as US citizen and go down different scenarios and see when it becomes the right kind of violence. A peaceful protest (this should be universally agreed on as a very bad target for military use). Rioters that burn cars and loot stores. White supremacists marching in the street. Exact same actions as any above but we call it terrorism. US citizens doing terrorism but which…
Target is not people, but actions in specific time and place.
Measures need to be justified and scrutinized.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Read this post by the Facebook VP - https://www.facebook.com/boz/posts/10111288357877121 As much as I hate Trump, many people are salty that he won and want to put a blame on something. That's it.
Where is his detailed analysis wether targeted political fake news articles based on personal data could flip swing states?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where is his detailed analysis wether targeted political fake news articles based on personal data could flip swing states?
You're asking a variation of 'When did you stop beating your wife'
> I believe our platforms can play a positive role in helping to heal the divisions in our society, Facebook systematically promotes and propogates the most inflammatory content posted on its platform. Why? Because it is the most engaging. This is part of the intentional design of Facebook, and is the fundamental reason there are so many problematic things happening on the platform. Mark's "thoughts" on the topic do…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is how you moderate your feed on Facebook: if you don't like someone and what they have to say, unfriend them. Problem solved.
My personal feed is not the issue here. The issue is how reactionary material keeps popping up in the feed of people who are susceptible into rallying behind it. The target area is so vast the you are bound to influence a lot of people. And the nature of the material only belonging to personal feeds makes scrutinizing by third parties impossible. All of this culminates into a really dangerous propaganda machine, espe…
You personally do not have a problem, but other less smart people are susceptible to this effect, and because each person is seeing only their own feed no one of their betters can check up on them.
That sounds to me more like arrogance and exactly the kind of issue people rebel against when they mention they don't like experts.
"We're going to review" "We're going to review" "We're going to review" "We're going to work on" "We're going to review" There's an old joke in Washington - when you want to look like you're doing something without doing anything at all, you commission a study (you review it).