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

391–400 of 603 posts

Re: Mark in the Middle

#391

Post by themacguffinman »

_vertigo wrote: post #239
scottlamb wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The big complaint is about lack of snacks! Free food , including meals. If Facebook is anything like Google, some single people were literally using that for every meal and snack 5/7 days per week. It's tasty, nutritious food, and you don't have to prepare it or do dishes. Sure, an adult should be able to take care of this on their own, but this is a major perk, not just a box of granola bars on a shelf. It might c…

Never mind the fact that Facebook probably pays better than 80% of tech companies Never mind the fact that tech salaries are already insane Never mind the fact that there is a global pandemic and corresponding economic uncertainty Never mind the fact that millions of people are out of work, can't afford to feed their families, and facing one of the biggest eviction crises of all time while being completely abandoned…

What are you saying, exactly? People can't complain if others have it worse? It's hard for me to think of a more charitable interpretation of your comment, which seems to plainly chastise Facebook employees for voicing complaints during the existence of other big problems in the world.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#392

Post by majormajor »

grawprog wrote: post #358
ravenstine wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't understand how facebook came to be responsible for policing political opinions anyway. There's tons of software engineers, product designers, etc. on an ideological bent. If companies like Facebook and Netflix hire these types of people, even if they think they're on the same side, they shouldn't be surprised when their employees begin making collective demands. > I see it amongst commenters here too. What…

>so control over dangerous ideas makes sense to them This is another concept that confuses me 'dangerous ideas'. How is that different than what the church did with things like witchcraft and paganism, those were 'dangerous ideas'. What makes an idea dangerous? If there's dangerous ideas are there safe ideas? What makes an idea safe? Can you give me and example of a safe idea vs a dangerous idea? Who decides which id…

You start out "what is with people these days" and then you end up "oh hey people have been doing this forever, with heresy and religion and so on" so... no, I don't see where you're going with this.

Are you surprised that arguments about which messages get amplified and which do not happen? That they happened historically and that they happen now? That Facebook (and other pieces of modern technology) have reinvigorated this discussion because they change the economics and effort and reach of people's actions?

One difference today is that we're having much more of this with just words in the private space and fewer legal or governmental ramifications... you could've gotten in a lot of official, thrown-in-jail-or-killed trouble for having the wrong ideas in the past!

Could you stop speaking in "what even is a dangerous idea" questions and put forth your own arguments? What do you picture your ideal world looking like, in terms of person A thinking one thing, person B thinking another, and person A's actions after person B starts trying to convince persons C, D, E... to take up certain positions... Let's use one of the "obvious" historical examples of a dangerous idea: "people like this are evil and we must kill them."

Re: Mark in the Middle

#393

Post by NewOrderNow »

jarpadat wrote: post #356
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…

It's pretty simple, although it may not be obvious. There are 2 different views about "what freedom/democracy is" that are presently doing battle in america, at least among inteligentsia One, the worldview embedded into your comment, is that freedom is about the limits of discourse. Under this system, limiting discourse is inherently undemocratic, so if facebook "censor(s) things they disagree with" this is bad and w…

Your point of view is intrinsically liberal, and the latter point of view plays the victim and assumes people can't evolve to gain the intelligence needed to not fall for misinformation. You intrinsically think there are people who can't make decisions for themselves. Sounds like control

Re: Mark in the Middle

#394

Post by shadowgovt »

starkred wrote: post #376
shadowgovt wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hypothesize a machine that allows you to change people's emotions directly, one that has seen mass adoption. Sure, people opt-in to using it, but once plugged in, it works as advertised: send the right commands to it, and people's emotions shift. You could do a lot of good with one of those! The ultimate anti-anxiety treatment, the ultimate in letting people become the cooler heads they need to be for good ideas to p…

> Hypothesize a machine that allows you to change people's emotions directly, one that has seen mass adoption. There absolutely are such machines and we call them computers. > Should people be allowed to install it? Communication is the powerful 'technology' that changes people's emotions directly. The mode of communication is a side-note. Tear down FB and none of this goes away - not because something rises from FB'…

Computers and face-to-face communication aren't quite there. I'm hypothesizing a machine that hits the emotional center with no intermediary. We don't have any technology in the real world that can do that yet (good art can approximate it, and good advertising can be very manipulative, but neither squirt neurotransmitters directly into your cerebral cortex of fire electrical impulses straight into your amygdala). This would be a technology that allowed you to set people's emotional states explicitly and willfully, without any intermediary of, for example, the personal experiences they're bringing to the table.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#395

Post by throw_m239339 »

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…

> It's still an open question whether it's a net positive for society

Was TV a net positive for society? It's anybody's guess.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#396

Post by xenospn »

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 think it's very much agreed upon that we shouldn't market cigarettes/liquor/drugs to children since they're vulnerable. Apparently, we have a country full of adults who are unable to tell fact from fiction - shouldn't we protect them as well?

Re: Mark in the Middle

#397

Post by josteink »

jarpadat wrote: post #356
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…

It's pretty simple, although it may not be obvious. There are 2 different views about "what freedom/democracy is" that are presently doing battle in america, at least among inteligentsia One, the worldview embedded into your comment, is that freedom is about the limits of discourse. Under this system, limiting discourse is inherently undemocratic, so if facebook "censor(s) things they disagree with" this is bad and w…

> The other worldview is that certain kinds of discourse are inherently against freedom. ... Under this worldview, the question of what the discourse is, is the whole analysis.

You will mostly find this worldview on the political left of the spectrum, and more often than not you will find the discourse they find to be “against freedom” to be the one held by their political opponent.

And when they promote their view in the form of a policy, they are effectively trying to outlaw people having opinions differing from theirs.

Rather current examples: identity politics and diversity policies. If you simply disagree with the basis of their argument, that disagreement is considered “hateful” in itself and your speech must be banned, no matter how civil.

How can one have free discourse, when the one righteous part has decided that only they are allowed to speak? There’s no freedom here. Not even close.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#398

Post by hintymad »

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 like being so hell-bent on ideologies either, but if I understand it correctly, a company has every right to be politically biased and therefore can moderate the hell out of its users' content? To be fair, of course, such moderation is really editorialization, right? If so, the companies should get less protection from Section 230, and people should be able to sue the companies left and right as well.

edit: s/censor/moderate

Re: Mark in the Middle

#400

Post by im3w1l »

xeeeeeeeeeeenu wrote: post #309
dfxm12 wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The most material difference between the two is that Reddit is based on user voting and Facebook is based on an opaque algorithm controlled by Facebook's executive board.

>Reddit is based on user voting and heavy moderation

User voting makes sure one side wins and the other loses. Moderation decides which one.

Facebook's like system instead creates cliques of like-minded (heh) people.

Post reply on HN