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

261–270 of 307 posts

Re: Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

#261

Post by danans »

s_y_n_t_a_x wrote: post #257
danans wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Win your arguments on merit, not by silencing the other side. In the wild world of unmoderated social media, "merit" at scale reduces to "the most salacious information that feeds what the audience wants to believe, regardless of whether it is grounded in evidence". It's just a propaganda rally, ultimately underpinnned by the old ominous maxim "might is right", with the target being a group who is not present in th…

> People don't have as innate a desire for intellectual rigor in deconstructing untruths as you or I would like. This is an elitist point of view, and I don't think you are as good at deconstructing untruths as you'd like to believe. > If anything, many people want to be lied to if the lie dovetails with their feelings and agendas. > I don't know - it's hard to judge another person's deep desires. So you think you ca…

> This is an elitist point of view, and I don't think you are as good at deconstructing untruths

You seem to have ignored the sentence I wrote immediately following that:

"Even you and I don't always have that rigor, even though we probably both strive for it."

I count myself as "people" here.

> So you think you can mindread people and you know what "many people" want? > You just admitted it's hard to judge another persons desires.

No, but I know that targeting peoples basest desires and resentments is a very effective propaganda technique. You don't need a PhD in history to concluded that.

Re: Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

#262

Post by flattone »

joubert wrote: post #53
flattone wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speculative: Before enough users start moving away maybe Facebook will figure out how to make it a legal requirement for us citizens to have a Facebook. You laugh now ... you can buy me a drink in 10 years or so.

Legal requirement for citizens to have a FB account seems highly highly unlikely to me, but perhaps I’m not paying sufficient attention. Why do you speculate that? Specifically, do you see signs of changes that could likely lead to that outcome?

My signals for suspecting this Or something like it being a near future outcome are a result of not connected observations.

1) the amount of sharing we already do. 20 years ago my family / social interactions would find it nearly impossible to even bother entertaining the current status of privacy. The idea you basically HAVE to have a cell phone and email to get any decent paying job, traffic cameras everywhere, and now corporations pushing their black box ML and hardware into municipalities / vetting with police support

2) volunteering approx EVERY biometric a person has to skip a line at airport screening (Clear, the company facilitating this)

3) political adversity to privacy and encryption

4) hacker news. Where I hope and aspire to participate in the best most curious and supportive manner. I held the conversations here in high regard and told outsiders of how productive and intelligent the conversations are (they are). Yet I frequently find many downvotes when I comment in opposition to Facebook, slightly less common re google etc.

5) in takeaway I have observed cultural changes, market, political and security practices changing... all in a direction of - whatever this possible, seems not good, and seems highly unlikely but valuable to entities in power - might actually happen.

Thanks!

Re: Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

#263

Post by dragonwriter »

bhupy wrote: post #260
dragonwriter wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And finally, just because violence is disproportional, doesn't automatically make it "illegal". Yes, actually, it does. Specifically, police force that is not “objectively reasonable” in the circumstances in which it is used constitutes an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment [0], and is therefore directly prohibited by that Amendment for the federal government and prohibited by the Fourteenth Amendment,…

Yes, but we are not talking about an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment, we are talking about the use of police force to prevent vandalization, which is the topic of the current tweet/post in question . That's hardly ambiguous.

> Yes, but we are not talking about an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment, we are talking about the use of police force to prevent vandalization,

If it is objective unreasonable (which disproportionate force is) in the circumstances, use of police force is an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment; that's the holding of the Supreme Court case I cited.

Re: Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

#264

Post by s_y_n_t_a_x »

danans wrote: post #261
s_y_n_t_a_x wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People don't have as innate a desire for intellectual rigor in deconstructing untruths as you or I would like. This is an elitist point of view, and I don't think you are as good at deconstructing untruths as you'd like to believe. > If anything, many people want to be lied to if the lie dovetails with their feelings and agendas. > I don't know - it's hard to judge another person's deep desires. So you think you ca…

> This is an elitist point of view, and I don't think you are as good at deconstructing untruths You seem to have ignored the sentence I wrote immediately following that: "Even you and I don't always have that rigor, even though we probably both strive for it." I count myself as "people" here. > So you think you can mindread people and you know what "many people" want? > You just admitted it's hard to judge another p…

Yes I did read your next statement and many people do have that rigor, this is not something you can mindread. If you don't check the news you read then it's on you.

It's certainly not so bad that we need to censor politicians because SO MANY people can't think for themselves.

We had 8 years of Obama, I didn't hear anything about anyone needing censoring, only when we have a Republican in office do we need to think about censoring...

When they start censoring the Democrats constant lies then I'll believe you want a legitimate debate. Don't worry the Dems will provide you with their very own fact checker!

I wouldn't assume, especially when it's assuming about 327 million people's ideology and thought process.

Re: Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

#265

Post by skewart »

netcan wrote: post #234
skewart wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s more, the NY Times has a strong business interest in convincing advertisers not to advertise on Facebook. I’m a bit skeptical of anything they publish these days about Facebook, Google, and other companies that could potentially threaten their access to clicks, just given their financial incentives to weaken these companies as much as possible.

That's kind of a skepticism conundrum. If media can't be trusted about media... I mean, I agree with you. They're vested. Even if it wasn't financial, journalists must have an insider's set of opinions about good & evil in the media industry.

Yeah, it is a bit of a conundrum, but I don't think I'd say they can't be trusted entirely. I mean, I doubt they're printing outright lies - unlike some media outlets. I think the bias would creep in more in the fact that they run this story at all (while potentially interesting, it's hardly world-changing news), and also in descriptive words used here and there. As long as one is aware of their inherent motivations I think it's possible to get worthwhile info from their stories on their competitors. Of course, who knows what stories about media they're choosing not to cover.

Re: Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

#266

Post by danans »

bhupy wrote: post #256
danans wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the Brandenburg v Ohio wiki page: > The U.S. Supreme Court reversed Brandenburg's conviction, holding that government cannot constitutionally punish abstract advocacy of force or law violation Brandenburg was an individual private citizen advocating "abstractly" for violence against black and Jews as a representative of his private organization (the KKK). His speech rights were protected then by the case. Howeve…

> POTUS is a public official and in this incident was speaking in his role as a public official with the power to use force, and a concrete threat against a concrete target. Yes, but that use of force is not lawless. Police use of force against vandalism is currently legal. Calling for that is also legal, because it fails the "lawless" portion of the "imminent lawless action" test. Similarly, if POTUS calls for war a…

> Similarly, if POTUS calls for war against a specific nation (or group), it is within his rights to do that, no matter how violent or deadly war may be.

Calling for war against a foreign adversary, yes. But for violence against domestic protesters - not clear that Brandenburg v Ohio protects that, regardless of whether the violence is lawful, and to what degree it is lawful. The use of violence by public officials is not a blanket right, and courts will likely consider the types of situation where particular levels of violence are legal or not.

Also, there are specific legal prohibitions against using the military against domestic targets, which is one of the things Mattis was so incensed about in the photo op incident. The administration would like to claim they have the option of the Insurrection Act, which will again have to be tested in courts. Calling protests insurrection, even those that commit vandalism, is false on its face.

Re: Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

#267

Post by bhupy »

dragonwriter wrote: post #263
bhupy wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but we are not talking about an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment, we are talking about the use of police force to prevent vandalization, which is the topic of the current tweet/post in question . That's hardly ambiguous.

> Yes, but we are not talking about an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment, we are talking about the use of police force to prevent vandalization, If it is objective unreasonable (which disproportionate force is) in the circumstances, use of police force is an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment; that's the holding of the Supreme Court case I cited.

Yeah there's no precedent for the argument that "use of police force against vandalism is objectively unreasonable".

If the "war on drugs" can be considered a legal/reasonable use of force (even though I personally disagree with it), you can make the same conclusion re: the war on defacement of public/private property. My point is that policing vandalism is not unreasonable, by any measure, and this is hardly ambiguous at all.

Re: Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

#268

Post by HeroOfAges »

sneak wrote: post #139
HeroOfAges wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one has a problem with anyone making nazi groups planning hate crimes illegal. My biggest concern is Facebook deciding who is a "nazi" and what constitutes a hate crime. My belief (backed by scientific fact) that biological sex is real and immutable is enough to have me branded as a "nazi". The statement "males are not females" is enough to be considered hate speech. Saying, "males are not females" could be a hate…

As usual, context is everything in communication. "Males are not females" may be accurate when referring to biological sex, but in the context it is most commonly used (as harassment and as a neoconservative tribal signifier) it is referring to gender, and is roughly equivalent to saying "the gender you have now should match the gender you were assigned at birth, or your gender identity is illegitimate". It's similar…

Since when does the truth need context? If I tweet "males are not females" on Twitter with no context, they will ban my account.

Also, if I want to say "the gender you have now should match the gender you were assigned at birth, or your gender identity is illegitimate", that's precisely what I'll say, but I tend to speak directly. Have you considered you might be projecting if you can read the literal words "males are not females" and conclude a person intends to say, "the gender you have now should match the gender you were assigned at birth, or your gender identity is illegitimate"? That seems like quite a leap.

Re: Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

#269

Post by dragonwriter »

bhupy wrote: post #267
dragonwriter wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes, but we are not talking about an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment, we are talking about the use of police force to prevent vandalization, If it is objective unreasonable (which disproportionate force is) in the circumstances, use of police force is an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment; that's the holding of the Supreme Court case I cited.

Yeah there's no precedent for the argument that "use of police force against vandalism is objectively unreasonable". If the "war on drugs" can be considered a legal/reasonable use of force (even though I personally disagree with it), you can make the same conclusion re: the war on defacement of public/private property. My point is that policing vandalism is not unreasonable, by any measure, and this is hardly ambiguo…

> Yeah there's no precedent for the argument that "use of police force against vandalism is objectively unreasonable".

Yes, pretty much every lawsuit that has been won (as many have been) with police use of force in protests has involved (1) the argument by police that the use of force was justified by the need to prevent an imminent threat of injuries to persons and property by arson, vandalism, etc., and (2) the determination by the court involved that the use of force involved was objectively unreasonable in the concrete circumstances that actually existed because it was disproportionate to the thrat that existed.

I mean, since Graham v. Connor that's literally the standard that has to be met, and it has a number of times, so there is certainly precedent.

> My point is that policing vandalism is not unreasonable

“policing vandalism” may be reasonable, that doesn't make the particular use of force in any particular incident automatically reasonable just because vandalism is threatened or occurring. Disproportionate use of force is specifically what is generally the source of a finding that force is objectively unreasonable.

Re: Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

#270

Post by s_y_n_t_a_x »

ben_w wrote: post #193
blueterminal wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When people lose their jobs if they make fun or just question certain group's behavior, what would you call it?

Now I’m confused, are you describing the police or BLM?

The fact that you think it matters which one is the problem.
Post reply on HN