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

251–260 of 603 posts

Re: Mark in the Middle

#251

Post by s1artibartfast »

shadowgovt wrote: post #213
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…

The problem is that facebook has partially replaced both broadcast television and private conversations people would have in person or on the phone.

Historically, nobody would batt and eye about a network policing the opinions represented in its programing. However, there would be uproar if a phone company controlled what was said in a call.

Facebook fills so many roles that a single solution does not exist.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#252

Post by danudey »

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.

You can see /r/conservative is more than a little active. Maybe the problem is that /r/politics moderators want reliable sources?

I mean, if you take a look, /r/conservative isn't exactly a bastion of lucid discussion. Case in point:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Conservative/comments/iytx49/locati...

Implying that protesters are out there burning down houses (they aren't) and that the huge increase in size and number of forest fires lately isn't a result of climage change (it is).

The real problem isn't that liberals are over-represented on /r/politics, but that most people who identify as "conservative" on Reddit and elsewhere have gone so far-right or conspiracy-theory or troll-hard that conservative outlets lately tend to be mass-producing more propaganda, right-wing content, or misinformation. If you're an actual conservative who hasn't been sucked up into this psychopath right-wing bubble, it's difficult to actually find content that isn't pandering to those who have by posting deliberately misleading or outright false articles.

I feel bad for anyone who believes in legitimate conservatism, because their viewpoints and political party have been so completely co-opted by the fascist far-right and alt-right that there's not much else for them to do but vote dem or join the lunatic fringe.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#253

Post by zbentley »

hnatitagain wrote: post #233
saeranv wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a strawman argument. No one cares about other people having and sharing different opinions. However the argument for moderating content on Facebook is centered around misinformation, and incitement of violence. There has now been multiple instances where right-wing populists have posted fake information on Facebook with political consequences. In Myanmar this incited in genocide[1]. [1] https://www.nytimes.co…

This is a disingenuous argument that neglects to include the fact that 'misinformation' and 'violence' are stretched beyond the pale by ideologues in order to justify why something they disagree with politically should be removed on these platforms.

People certainly do falsely assert that things are more harmful than they are to justify taking them down. But it's not disingenuous to point out that there are many cases where disinformation really is deeply harmful (as in it results in death or bodily harm to many, many people).

Re: Mark in the Middle

#254

Post by pak9rabid »

dsbleia wrote: post #223

I think this actually made Zuck's leadership look solid. Of course it's a little naive to say "we aren't political", but he's probably just doing that because it's the calculated thing to say. Almost every other company says things like that, except for a few ideological ones in Silicon Valley. I don't know how anyone takes these employees at FB seriously. They are complaining about the lack of free snacks? Anyone co…

lol, this reminds me of a meeting the department I was in at the time (tech support) had with the head of operations years ago. When she opened the floor for serious questions/comments, the first thing some jackass brought up was his disappointment in the lack of free tea in the break room. The look on her face was priceless.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#255

Post by rocketpastsix »

HeroOfAges wrote: post #217
rocketpastsix wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I also do not have a Facebook account.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#256

Post by nec4b »

patmcc wrote: post #206
jamiequint wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's actually not, because people have different moral foundations, and many people value loyalty/authority/sanctity over care/fairness. It doesn't mean they don't care about care/fairness, it just means they don't make it their moral priority. If you refuse to engage with these people and view them all as sub-human there's no path forward for society.

If someone has "moral foundations" that cause them to think that, for example, a particular race of people is not worthy of life, I will refuse to engage with them in reasonable debate. There's no midpoint between nazis and non-nazis; the nazis are wrong and should be handled by force. This may or may not be the case with ICE, the GOP, etc. but fundamentally there are some people who should not be engaged with in thi…

Where do you find all these nazis that want to debate you in real life?

Re: Mark in the Middle

#257

Post by lightgreen »

pcbro141 wrote: post #150
zimpenfish wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Yup, middle ground fallacy. Like saying we can find a 'middle ground' between "black lives do matter" and "black lives don't matter".

Very very few people say "black lives don't matter".

Finding a middle ground between these two argument is practically non-existent situation.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#258

Post by [deleted] »

shadowgovt wrote: post #213
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…

[deleted]

Re: Mark in the Middle

#259

Post by seiferteric »

zimpenfish wrote: post #89
yomly wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of the developing world are still deeply homophobic. Are all those people morally bankrupt and unworthy of a place in the hallowed gardens of equality? Maybe a point of view is crafted through a life's worth of conditioning and experience. We seem comfortable accepting that fact when considering social conditioning over other issues, but when it comes to conservatism we draw the line - they are the evil others.…

> Are all those people morally bankrupt and unworthy of a place in the hallowed gardens of equality? I would say that places in the "hallowed gardens of equality" are for those who believe in equality, not those who consider any set of other people as lesser. > and in doing so force the other group to take a side. No-one forces anyone to be racist, homophobic, etc. > have had their own life circumstances shape their…

There is a problem with this view because all groups of people are essentially (statistically) the same and are in fact shaped by their environment. What I mean is, if you were born in their world, you would statistically share similar views to them right? Or are you saying that you are somehow naturally morally superior to them and would resist these bigoted view if you were born in their shoes? I don't think so... so given that we must accept that our views do largely come from our environment right? If so is it not our job to try and change/convince them that this views are wrong, i.e. enlighten them? What I mean is you don't have to accept their opinions as valid or equal, but people absolutely should engage with people that hold very different, even reprehensible viewpoints. Otherwise they and their environment will not change and the cycle continues...

Re: Mark in the Middle

#260

Post by ThrowawayR2 »

throwaway123x2 wrote: post #158
rswskg wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The burning of american cities by antifa could not have played into trumps hands any better. I almost wonder if right wing organisations are behind them sometimes.

What burning? I asked my friend in Portland about how the anarchy in Portland is, and he responded, "Eh, a bunch of people are pissed in about one city block." Here in Chicago, things are completely fine and have been except for the day or two after George Floyd was murdered.

Reality doesn't matter all that much. The news has played up the violence to get viewers and ad impressions because that is its nature and its lifeblood. That can be easily be given the right spin to sway voters on the fence away from the left.

Had the protests been purely peaceful, it would've been looked really good for the left. As it stands, it's been a heaven-sent blessing for the right to use as propaganda instead.

Post reply on HN