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

Mark in the Middle

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 603 posts

Re: Mark in the Middle

#211

Post by ConanRus »

umvi wrote: post #180

If I had to guess it's because facebook has a larger portion of older conservative folks than other social media platforms? If you look at /r/politics on reddit you see the opposite problem (over-representation - nearly 100% - liberal news sources) which is probably because older conservatives don't use reddit? It can't be healthy for entire social media platforms to be completely dominated by one party or the other.

No, its because Reddit is leftist too and Reddit mods are censuring content there. You may find the info online on what they did to conservative subreddits.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#212

Post by scarmig »

mrfusion wrote: post #174

Isn’t it weird you wouldn’t talk about politics in most settings especially among people you aren’t close to, but it’s ok to spam your 200 friends with political articles?

What I find most surprising is that all that political spam on Facebook drives engagement so much. At this point I barely get on it and never interact with my timeline, because half of it is shitty ads and the rest repetitive politics, and my mental model of people has most of us being turned off by it. Apparently not, though I do wonder if Facebook is somehow oversampling on a particular kind of engagement.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#213

Post by shadowgovt »

grawprog wrote: post #203

So, facebook employees are mad they're not allowed to censor things they disagree with that people post on facebook? I don't understand how facebook came to be responsible for policing political opinions anyway. In fact, I don't understand why employees at tech companies believe they have the right to police people's opinions period. I see it amongst commenters here too. What gives any of these people the right to po…

I don't think it's "people these days;" I think it was the norm that has been disrupted by modern technology.

Network broadcast television operates under standards and practices, where certain things are not allowed for broadcast. That includes the news---even news stories are subject to S&P constraint.

Does network broadcast television "police political opinion" if it doesn't give a pedophile a half-hour of air time to plead their case?

The world of decentralized bidirectional near-lightspeed mass-communication, where there is often not a gatekeeper, is relatively new.

It's still an open question whether it's a net positive for society. I would say there have been a lot of positive consequences. Negative consequences are also stacking up quickly.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#214

Post by ianmobbs »

hawkice wrote: post #190
notional wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Last 24hrs top-performing pages in the US, for anyone who can't click the link. 1. Dan Bongino 2. Dan Bongino 3. Breitbart 4. Fox News 5. Robert Reich 6. NPR 7. Ben Shapiro 8. Dan Bongino 9. Mark Levin 10. Bernie Sanders This is curated by https://twitter.com/kevinroose I had to look up most of those names but if you're wondering, looking back a couple weeks it's usually 9/10 or 10/10 right-wing talk hosts/sources. I…

> It appears FB is essentially a right-wing mouth piece, idk if that is a controversial opinion, but the data appears that way, I think. I mean, mouthpiece can't possibly be the right term. Does anyone think they should forbid Fox News articles from being shared? If you don't want them moderating it away, and they aren't themselves recommending it, their role is pretty minor. The idea of Facebook is that when you pos…

> Does anyone think they should forbid Fox News articles from being shared?

I mean...yeah

Re: Mark in the Middle

#215

Post by qppo »

grawprog wrote: post #203

So, facebook employees are mad they're not allowed to censor things they disagree with that people post on facebook? I don't understand how facebook came to be responsible for policing political opinions anyway. In fact, I don't understand why employees at tech companies believe they have the right to police people's opinions period. I see it amongst commenters here too. What gives any of these people the right to po…

Their entire existence is predicated on policing opinions for the highest bidder, or in a way that benefits the highest bidder. Should ethics and morality not be integrated into that model?

Re: Mark in the Middle

#216

Post by ls612 »

pjc50 wrote: post #55
loxs wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an outsider (from a different continent), it doesn't seem at all likely that there is a chance for Biden winning. It probably looks the same from where Zuck is sitting. We might, of course, both be wrong :)

My money is on Biden receiving the most votes in the popular vote, but Trump still being in power next year, and a huge amount of litigation and riots in the meantime. (Not sure why this got downvoted; Clinton won the popular vote last time, I see no reason that won't happen again?)

People probably misunderstood what he was saying. If trump loses the electoral college there’s no way he will be in power next year. But, Trump could plausibly win the electoral college again and is almost guaranteed to lose the popular vote. For reference, 538 has Trump right now at 22% chance to win the electoral college. The day before the 2016 election they had him at 28% to win.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#217

Post by HeroOfAges »

rocketpastsix wrote: post #202
hawkice wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It appears FB is essentially a right-wing mouth piece, idk if that is a controversial opinion, but the data appears that way, I think. I mean, mouthpiece can't possibly be the right term. Does anyone think they should forbid Fox News articles from being shared? If you don't want them moderating it away, and they aren't themselves recommending it, their role is pretty minor. The idea of Facebook is that when you pos…

mouth piece is a stretch. "Popular site for people who lean right of the aisle of the American congress" however is more apt for what Facebook is. The problem isn't Fox News though (they are bad enough), its that fake news stories (generally right leaning) are easily crafted and shared at a significant pace on Facebook that is seemingly having a deep impact on the American electorate and government.

Would you be willing to provide me 3 links to right leaning fake news stories published today? The original links please. I no longer have a Facebook account.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#218

Post by rhino369 »

mrfusion wrote: post #174

Isn’t it weird you wouldn’t talk about politics in most settings especially among people you aren’t close to, but it’s ok to spam your 200 friends with political articles?

Is it socially acceptable to spam people with political articles? I don’t think so. I mute people who do too much of that.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#219

Post by dvtrn »

mattacular wrote: post #162
roenxi wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Although a follow up would be the comforting level of maturity in Facebook's leadership, acknowledging that it isn't their role to bring politics into the workplace. It is distressingly refreshing to see a company in the news for taking a stance like "In my work with Joel, I’ve found him to be ... very rigorous and principled in his thinking [and therefore I'm happy to work with him despite being a Republican]". It r…

Whenever someone says "don't bring politics into X" it's a cop-out. Doubly so for anything related to Facebook. Politics is how we solve all problems between competing interests as a society. You can't operate a business in this country (or any) which is divorced from politics. It's absurd for Zuck to suggest that his business should be immune to political forces.

Politics is how we solve all problems between competing interests as a society.

I've been trying to find ways of asking the question of "what do you mean 'political'" and if someone were to ask for my 'elevator pitch', I'd find myself in agreement with your definition above, but something tells me there will be clashes against this definition, because it is either too limiting to be effectively weaponized as a thought-terminating rebuke, or too expansive to allow for a firm encapsulation and therefore jettisoning of targeted forms of 'unpleasing and disturbing information'[1] (take this statement as far as a pleasant and idle thought will allow, I am not accusing one side of this while condoning it from another, it's not even about who or whom, it's just a man thinking through his keyboard.)

Star Trek introduces a black female lead "Star Trek is getting political". (I fear I may have opened pandora's box with that one)

Colin Kaepernick kneels in protest of police violence "Keep politics out of sports".

Pop_Culture_Icon_number42 argues for an improvement in how society conducts itself in terms of previously_under_addressed_social_scenario_27 "This pop star is getting too political".

To me, politics is inherently and by the function of what we allow, just as you said: an embracing of the necessity to solve problems where there are competing interests. To take issue with that, and rebuke a point of order as "getting political" is, perhaps-and at least in my mind-an unwitting show of the rebuker's hand.

But at the same time, I think about shit way too much.

[1] https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/39004-we-have-currently-a-b...

Re: Mark in the Middle

#220

Post by ffggvv »

zimpenfish wrote: post #48
mensetmanusman wrote: post #38

Premise: Diversity is good. Diversity means diversity of ideas. Ergo, you will disagree vehemently with people, and this is a good thing under the framework of diversity. Do not confuse disagreeing with someone as that person being morally sub-human, and if you are able to do this your life will be more pleasant. Disagreement is a good thing, it is society’s mechanism for decision making in complex circumstances.

> Do not confuse disagreeing with someone as that person being morally sub-human If your disagreement with that person is about whether someone else is considered less of a human than they are (by dint of race, wealth, sexuality, whatever), it's probably ok to consider them morally bankrupt on that basis.

then you just label anyone who disagrees with you as having those beliefs. and then you get to smugly consider them subhuman and ban them without having a single thing break your bubble
Post reply on HN