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

281–290 of 603 posts

Re: Mark in the Middle

#281

Post by adamiscool8 »

danudey wrote: post #252
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…

That thread looks like reasonable discussion of an alternative viewpoint but, much like the Facebook employees, you dismiss them because you presume the superiority of your own beliefs.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#282

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

Re: Mark in the Middle

#283

Post by AlexandrB »

oxymoran wrote: post #270
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…

What I don’t understand is that if they are going to police opinions, they are acting as editors, not a platform. They should thus be held accountable for any improper editorial decisions that they make in the same way that a newspaper would be via civil suit.

They're already acting as editors thanks to the algorithmic feed. Thus people are trying to hold them accountable for any improper editorial decisions.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#284

Post by HeroOfAges »

rocketpastsix wrote: post #255
HeroOfAges wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Then why do you believe right leaning fakes news stories are shared any more often than left leaning fake news stories on Facebook?

Re: Mark in the Middle

#285

Post by mattacular »

dandersh wrote: post #187
mattacular wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yep. Also it can be (not saying that's the case here) used as a way to exclude undesirable politics while keeping desirable politics in place. For example the "don't bring politics into sports" that was bandied about during the kneeling controversy in the NFL a few years ago. The National Anthem is political. All of the "support the troops" events during games (paid for by the taxpayers!) is political.

Not sure why you've been downvoted.

NFL may not be in as good of a position to distort the political environment as Facebook just due to the obvious differences between what they do, so maybe not seen as as much of a "threat" to the political order. But the NFL absolutely hides behind the same "no politics here!" curtain that Zuck is attempting to pull down. Nobody is really buying it from either company. Anyone who has watched an NFL game has seen the stuff you mentioned and more. It's absurd to say sports are not political .. of course they are! It's one of the few common grounds Americans have to stand together on, it is broadly politicized as a result.

Edit: grammar fixes

Re: Mark in the Middle

#286

Post by triceratops »

Jerry2 wrote: post #249
okprod wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook can do whatever it wants, including policing communications on its platform; it's a for-profit company.

Sure, but then it shouldn't be allowed to hide behind Section 230.

For the 500 millionth time Section 230 does not say "censorship makes you a publisher". It says the exact opposite. An information service cannot be held liable for:

"any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected"

Translation: they can "censor" or moderate or remove spam to their heart's content, even beyond what's legally required.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#287

Post by chris11 »

starkred wrote: post #229
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 still don't get it and I can't get away from 'printing press' analogies. "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" resulted in countless deaths but who owns that responsibly besides whoever wrote it, read it, and acted on the information within? You could blame it's publishers but that seems pretty off-track. Also every company I've ever worked at has angry, self-righteous employees who disagree with upper management.…

There should be standards, even if they aren't defined by law. "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" was republished by Henry Ford as part of a series of anti-semitic articles. The decision to publish them was immoral and is evidence of Ford's racism. I'm sure employers at the Economist would be angry if it started to run articles that would be a better fit for the National Enquirer.

Facebook is kind of different, it argues that it's a platform not a publisher. They do have some ground to argue for looser guidelines. But their business model targeting engagement incentivises them to promote divisive and false information. I'd be much more comfortable with Facebook if they didn't promote extreme and dangerous content. What those standards should be is a thorny issue, but better moderation would be an improvement.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#288

Post by mrguyorama »

jjice wrote: post #177
nemothekid wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> acknowledging that it isn't their role to bring politics into the workplace. This is very hard for me to square with Facebook. It's like working at the NY Times and saying "no politics in the work place." Almost any decision FB makes is by definition political. The top 10 most interacted pages on Facebook are political. COVID-19, in the US, is political. It doesn't strike me as mature, it's deceitful. It's very eas…

> Almost any decision FB makes is by definition political. The top 10 most interacted pages on Facebook are political. COVID-19, in the US, is political. While this makes sense and I agree with you, I still think that some dev ops employee shouldn't be forced to engage in political debate because their company is politically involved. While the company may be, there are many positions that can be politically agnostic…

Nobody is forcing Joe Blow devops to work at Facebook and get very well compensated. Sometimes you need to face the morals of what you are doing

Re: Mark in the Middle

#289

Post by danudey »

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…

No, but they could try to stop their algorithm from recommending groups promoting disinformation, conspiracy theories, hate speech, and racial violence.

They could also take efforts to fact-check political ads, or prohibit them entirely as others have done.

The reality is that Facebook is afraid of a reckoning. They're pretty sure that they're going to be under investigation, and likely regulated or broken up, if the democrats win. If the republicans win, they get to continue to be the incredibly profitable right-wing disinformation distribution hub they have been for a while. This gives them little incentive to clean up their act, since that might leave them vulnerable to the consequences of their actions (or inactions).

It's not just about letting people post lies and disinformation from Fox News, it's about Facebook actively herding whoever they can into groups that radicalize people in order to increase their engagement by driving them down a conspiracy theory rabbit hole.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#290

Post by tyingq »

lightgreen wrote: post #275
tyingq wrote: post #149

"Facebook had given its employees $1,000 bonuses and said it would give them all top marks on their first-half performance evaluations, no matter how they had actually performed." Giving everyone high performance evaluations isn't a perk. It's a disservice.

It simply means, they get their bonuses, nothing more.

Okay, it reads like everyone's review says "Exceeds", or whatever the top mark is. That's not fair to those that are actually "Exceeding".
Post reply on HN