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

Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 307 posts

Re: Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

#141

Post by pjc50 »

Veen wrote: post #69
SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It surely feels like it at least when every single major javascript framework has a #BLM header. Isn't that expressing free speech? Or do you believe those headers have been coerced, and they feel forced to post one? I'm dubious that's the case, and I doubt it'll affect the frameworks future success whether they post one or not.

If a majority posts a banner, and one doesn't, it will be understood as opposition. As we've been hearing a lot of late: "Silence is pro-racist" and "Silence is violence". Under those conditions, not posting a banner would be to risk being considered a racist organization. This is not quite coercion, but nor is it possible to decline to post a banner without substantial and probably unjustified cost.

That's just other people using their free speech to call you a racist. Does their speech have a cost to you? Do you want them .. censored? Or should we be allowed to put "Veen is a racist" in all our javascript headers?

As the British version of the Miranda warning says, "You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court".

Re: Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

#142

Post by s_y_n_t_a_x »

SoylentOrange wrote: post #34
ecmascript wrote: post #5

So because Mark Zuckerberg won't censor people with different opinions he is complacent in spreading fake news and hate? Wow, that kind of rhetoric is dangerous imo. For once I actually think Facebook have made the right call. Censoring people is wrong and Facebook should refrain from doing it. Let me decide what is true and false, I don't need Facebook or other people to decide that for me. Good job Facebook, thanks…

The problem (among other things) is hyper-targeting of people who are specifically vulnerable to extreme points of view. One of my friends is an expert in tracking ads on Facebook and has found that white nationalists micro-target people who are susceptible to that ideology [1]. Similarly, they have refused to fact-check (not remove) climate science denialism, because they consider it opinion and thus exempt from the…

We shouldn't give up our freedoms because you think some people can't think for themselves.

They can think for themselves, you just don't understand their thoughts & perspective through your bias/bubble.

Censoring is wrong, period. Win your arguments on merit, not by silencing the other side.

Re: Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

#143

Post by klyrs »

wayne_skylar wrote: post #109

I find it so funny that Facebook hides behind "freedom of speech" when in fact what they do is the exact opposite. When everything you saw was cronological, you could make that argument. I write a message on my wall and everyone who follows me can see it if they scroll down far enough. Most importantly, the only criteria used was the time it was submitted which I think everyone can agree is fair. By prioritizing cert…

Facebook has a right to free speech. They can moderate and curate content on their site.

Their commitment to your free speech is "free as in beer" -- as in, you're giving them content and they don't pay you a dime for it.

Re: Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

#144

Post by aero142 »

sneak wrote: post #122
wayne_skylar wrote: post #109

I find it so funny that Facebook hides behind "freedom of speech" when in fact what they do is the exact opposite. When everything you saw was cronological, you could make that argument. I write a message on my wall and everyone who follows me can see it if they scroll down far enough. Most importantly, the only criteria used was the time it was submitted which I think everyone can agree is fair. By prioritizing cert…

The (legitimate) argument is that freedom of speech extends to facebook getting to decide what, and in what order, information is displayed on facebook.com. To dictate a chronological order, or to demand that they publish every single thing that is submitted to them, is a restriction of their freedom of editorial expression on their own website .

Yes, but Facebook clearly wants you to believe that it is the user's freedom of speech being restricted, not their own freedom being restricted. At the same time, they want to be a "platform" and claim they are not legally responsible for what is being said, they just promote it.

Re: Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

#145

Post by bhupy »

_bxg1 wrote: post #124
bhupy wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay but ethics isn't universal either. There is no objective moral framework. "Not everybody shares your views" == "Not everybody shares your ethics". Let me try and steel-man this for you: if you believe in classical liberal principles of free speech, then you might probably be "proud" to work at FB, as well as of Zuckerberg's stance. Here's a better articulation of that: https://stratechery.com/2020/zuckerbergs-ch…

Facebook and the like have directly driven a huge increase in worldwide division and polarization. And faced with that fact they've continued their course full-steam-ahead. I don't know of any moral framework where that isn't a negative for society. Some on the economic-right might argue it isn't Facebook's problem to worry about because something something The Market. But even they wouldn't say the full picture is a…

I really encourage you to try and construct the strongest counter-argument to yourself so that you might at least be able to empathize with why someone might be sympathetic to Facebook's current stances without jumping to the conclusion that they are cartoonishly evil. Remember that everyone is "the good guy" in their own story.

The moral framework where Facebook "isn't a negative for society" is the one that says that a free society should be able to openly express itself, and insofar as there is a high degree of polarization/division, it's because society itself is divided, and the free expression simply exposes that. In other words, how do you know that Facebook caused the polarization? How can you definitely conclude that Facebook isn't simply a mirror on society, and that society was already divided to begin with?

Re: Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

#146

Post by gfo »

avernon wrote: post #6

Maybe I'm cynical, but I would think this has more to do with the cost of ads going up so much. If you were already thinking of reducing spend on FB, why not get a little PR out of it? Also, since the cost of FB ads has been going up over the last several years, that means there is no shortage of demand for ads on FB.

Possibly, but advertising is one of the first things companies cut in a down economy. I want to believe these companies have good intent, but it could also be construed as opportunistic: "we were already cutting our advertising budget, so this just gives us a way to capitalize."

To show they believe in what they're doing, they should donate what they would have spent on Facebook ads to causes which promote voter registration and improving minority representation in tech.

Re: Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

#147

Post by maurys »

neya wrote: post #94
tech-historian wrote: post #64

Serious questions: Are the people that work at Facebook proud to work there? What is morale like inside that place? When someone asks you what you do, and you say "I work for Facebook," what is their typical reaction? Not trying to be snarky. I'm genuinely curious how these perceptions/feelings might have changed over the past few years.

In Singapore, most of them are actually proud. I've been to their office a bunch of times and in fact, people treat it as something super prestigious, especially considering the office space is really nice with a beautiful view of the Marina. Sometimes, their employees will sound extremely arrogant and even look down upon you if you don't work for another equivalent giant (like Google Singapore). I guess different pa…

Culturally, yes, prestige and a known company is probably more helpful in Asian countries.

Another perspective is that I take the money, help support my extended family and community and feel like a net positive contributer.

Concerns with how social media is affecting relationships and corporate bullying are less real to me personally than the people I meet day to day who I can support.

Again, not arguing about which perspective is right, but yeah there are other ways to look at one's situation.

Re: Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

#148

Post by esperent »

erikw wrote: post #106
tech-historian wrote: post #64

Serious questions: Are the people that work at Facebook proud to work there? What is morale like inside that place? When someone asks you what you do, and you say "I work for Facebook," what is their typical reaction? Not trying to be snarky. I'm genuinely curious how these perceptions/feelings might have changed over the past few years.

I too am curious about the internal motivations of people who work for Facebook. Something I've noticed about myself is that I would be okay with working for a US defense contractor, ie a company which makes machines that literally kill people, yet I could not picture myself working at Facebook. I struggle to square this morally, because I also believe that defense contractors have a greater net negative impact on so…

> I would be okay with working for a US defense contractor, ie a company which makes machines that literally kill people

The thought of working for a company like this makes me feel physically ill. Soldiers can at least feel like they are working to defend a country they believe in. Weapons companies will sell killing machines to anyone with money. Few things in the world make me feel the visceral disgust that these companies engender.

By contrast Facebook is icky ... In the sense that there's one naive greedy idiot pulling the strings and he refuses to accept the damage he's causing. Weapons companies and the people who work for them know that their killing tools are sold indiscriminately and will end up in the hands of tyrants and terrorists across the world.

Re: Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

#149

Post by pjc50 »

sneak wrote: post #122
wayne_skylar wrote: post #109

I find it so funny that Facebook hides behind "freedom of speech" when in fact what they do is the exact opposite. When everything you saw was cronological, you could make that argument. I write a message on my wall and everyone who follows me can see it if they scroll down far enough. Most importantly, the only criteria used was the time it was submitted which I think everyone can agree is fair. By prioritizing cert…

The (legitimate) argument is that freedom of speech extends to facebook getting to decide what, and in what order, information is displayed on facebook.com. To dictate a chronological order, or to demand that they publish every single thing that is submitted to them, is a restriction of their freedom of editorial expression on their own website .

Yes, I think this is an important distinction to remind people of.

On youtube for example, what's "inside the frame" is speech of the uploader. All the stuff around it, especially recommendations, is Google's. Google have the right to not reccommend fascists if they don't want to.

Re: Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

#150

Post by WhompingWindows »

wayne_skylar wrote: post #109

I find it so funny that Facebook hides behind "freedom of speech" when in fact what they do is the exact opposite. When everything you saw was cronological, you could make that argument. I write a message on my wall and everyone who follows me can see it if they scroll down far enough. Most importantly, the only criteria used was the time it was submitted which I think everyone can agree is fair. By prioritizing cert…

American free speech is a legal concept from the late 1700s, before germ theory, trains, antibiotics, flight, or even the Civil War to end slavery. Free speech is a concept from the time where a majority of US power was in the hands of slaveholders...when "speech" meant what your mouth or printing press could produce.

Can we really expect this antiquated legal concept to neatly interact with technology from 2020? Did the founders think it a good idea to allow incendiary and dangerous communication to millions instantaneously? We can't know, they didn't have that debate.

Edit: Someone want to comment and explain why this is downvoted to -2?

Post reply on HN