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

Facebook, Twitter dismantle global array of disinformation networks

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 265 posts

Re: Facebook, Twitter dismantle global array of disinformation networks

#151

Post by root_axis »

hnracer wrote: post #129
root_axis wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Now how do you feel about Twitter and Facebook deciding what misinformation is? I don't see how that changes anything except the political leanings of the website operators. Can you explain what the problem is?

One problem is that the power to vet/censor particular things may be beneficial in a certain pair of hands but disastrous in another, especially when you're dealing with a platform that has extremely powerful network effects and controls so much of the information flow in society. To reiterate the point of the previous comment, would you feel comfortable if FB came under control of the Saudis while it was engaged in…

> One problem is that the power to vet/censor particular things may be beneficial in a certain pair of hands but disastrous in another

What's the disaster exactly? I keep seeing allusions to catastrophe and disaster but I am not seeing any specifics about the material effects of this catastrophe.

> would you feel comfortable if FB came under control of the Saudis while it was engaged in extensive vetting

Why would that make me uncomfortable? Like what are the Saudis going to do with Facebook that would be so terrible compared to what Facebook is already doing under current ownership? The Saudis in particular seem like a weird example considering the already prolific influence of SoftBank in U.S. tech firms.

> Another problem is that vetting (/censorship) is often supported when it's "your side" doing the vetting

I don't have a "side" with respect to what Facebook removes from its platform, I can't fathom a scenario where something being removed from Facebook can be accurately described as a catastrophe or a disaster regardless of who is doing the removing.

Re: Facebook, Twitter dismantle global array of disinformation networks

#152

Post by steplock »

vinhboy wrote: post #74
unethical_ban wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the alternative? Think you're the smartest person on the planet, unaffected by misinformation? "Feed me the libraries worth of bullshit from the Internet, and I will sort through this free market firehose to come to a logical, evidence based conclusion", hm? Have you ever read spam ads on Craigslist, fake comments on news sites, bots on Tinder, etc? There are patterns, there are foul motives, and with their i…

> Think you're the smartest person on the planet, unaffected by misinformation? Thank goodness someone is calling this out other than me. Sites like these are filled with people who think they are smart don't need any help, and worse, expect everyone else in the world to be at their level. I too am glad social media companies are finally waking up and taking action against this stuff. Can you imagine a world where Go…

>Can you imagine a world where Google decided they wouldn't filter spam because it was too controversial

Absolutely. Another solution would simply fill in the vacuum. Google—-Alphabet, rather—-is a for-profit corporation. Their initial success was the result of outperforming other services in a field so nascent that no one really knew exactly what it was. Google is no one’s friend; they’re not subject to anything except clear demarcations of legal statue and the court system.

It’s important to realize “this stuff” may, someday, very well become your stuff, my stuff and our stuff.

That’s the threat, in my opinion. Information is not harmful. Information we can each investigate and self-audit within our own brains. Google we cannot investigate, and it will never experience anything close to a public-facing audit.

Don’t capitulate your God given power away. The power to think. To question. To be wrong. To change your mind. To grow.

One man’s opinion.

Re: Facebook, Twitter dismantle global array of disinformation networks

#153

Post by FriendlyNormie »

IanDrake wrote: post #107
vinhboy wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Think you're the smartest person on the planet, unaffected by misinformation? Thank goodness someone is calling this out other than me. Sites like these are filled with people who think they are smart don't need any help, and worse, expect everyone else in the world to be at their level. I too am glad social media companies are finally waking up and taking action against this stuff. Can you imagine a world where Go…

I can't believe how backward and elitists this statement is. HN is at the point of max absurdity. You belittle someone you don't know, decrying that they couldn't possibly evaluate truth. Then prescribed some prescient censor, who you also do not know, to control the flow of information?

No post body was provided.

Re: Facebook, Twitter dismantle global array of disinformation networks

#154

Post by apostacy »

unethical_ban wrote: post #38
hirundo wrote: post #9

I don't trust Facebook or Twitter to distinguish disinformation from information. Why would anyone?

What is the alternative? Think you're the smartest person on the planet, unaffected by misinformation? "Feed me the libraries worth of bullshit from the Internet, and I will sort through this free market firehose to come to a logical, evidence based conclusion", hm? Have you ever read spam ads on Craigslist, fake comments on news sites, bots on Tinder, etc? There are patterns, there are foul motives, and with their i…

> I understand the gut feeling to be suspicious of any large org to filter information. People on this very thread are screaming "censorship!" as if they were Orwell in the streets warning us the end is nigh.

I mean, these companies have a monopoly or near monopoly on communications, and they have openly said they are going to arbitrarily remove information that they don't like, without any kind of transparency or accountability.

Is the fact that congress is not enacting a law supposed to mean that it is not censorship, and that we can't complain about it?

Would you be ok with other private networks doing it?

Besides, if we must have censorship, could we at least have someone more deserving of our trust do it? These policies of removing "fake news" greatly worsened COVID-19. As late as February, they were removing "disinformation" that it was infectious human to human.

Telling someone to mask up in early March could get you banned.

Posting first party evidence of the chaos in China in January could get you banned. It was fake news and disinformation. They were protecting us.

These companies should be begging us for a second chance to filter the truth for us.

Not just are these companies fallible, but they also have a very obvious neoliberal agenda. I've watched every single progressive podcast I liked get shadowbanned or outright removed from every major platform over the last year.

Why are people so eager for this?

Re: Facebook, Twitter dismantle global array of disinformation networks

#155

Post by hnracer »

root_axis wrote: post #151
hnracer wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One problem is that the power to vet/censor particular things may be beneficial in a certain pair of hands but disastrous in another, especially when you're dealing with a platform that has extremely powerful network effects and controls so much of the information flow in society. To reiterate the point of the previous comment, would you feel comfortable if FB came under control of the Saudis while it was engaged in…

> One problem is that the power to vet/censor particular things may be beneficial in a certain pair of hands but disastrous in another What's the disaster exactly? I keep seeing allusions to catastrophe and disaster but I am not seeing any specifics about the material effects of this catastrophe. > would you feel comfortable if FB came under control of the Saudis while it was engaged in extensive vetting Why would th…

You can see the effects in China where state control of the narrative, achieved in large part by oversight of companies, has made their population completely unaware of the Uighur situation.

Granted, FB is a private company so the extent to which it's a concern is not as big, but given the control that FB has over information flow and the network effects of FB, similar risks are present. Think: swaying elections by permitting misinformation that supports only a certain side. It's an extraordinary amount of power that has the potential to be used maliciously. At the moment it remains a hypothetical but given the China example it is not an unreasonable concern.

Re: Facebook, Twitter dismantle global array of disinformation networks

#157

Post by root_axis »

hnracer wrote: post #155
root_axis wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One problem is that the power to vet/censor particular things may be beneficial in a certain pair of hands but disastrous in another What's the disaster exactly? I keep seeing allusions to catastrophe and disaster but I am not seeing any specifics about the material effects of this catastrophe. > would you feel comfortable if FB came under control of the Saudis while it was engaged in extensive vetting Why would th…

You can see the effects in China where state control of the narrative, achieved in large part by oversight of companies, has made their population completely unaware of the Uighur situation. Granted, FB is a private company so the extent to which it's a concern is not as big, but given the control that FB has over information flow and the network effects of FB, similar risks are present. Think: swaying elections by p…

I think the general concern with respect to foreign ownership of U.S. firms is reasonable to discuss, but I don't see a problem with Facebook removing content from the website regardless of the owner. Regardless of who owns Facebook there is going to be some content that will be removed, same of every platform out there, I just don't see what the harm is that something is taken down from Facebook.

Re: Facebook, Twitter dismantle global array of disinformation networks

#158

Post by luckylion »

twitter_anon wrote: post #134
aresant wrote: post #21

Disinformation content works because it drives huge engagement. Huge engagement pays the bills for FB and twitter. If we expect change we need an analog to a carbon or pollution tax for social. “Show me the incentives and I will show you the outcome.”- Charlie Munger

This is a popular sentiment on HN, but it oversimplifies the situation. Engagement, in the aggregate, does not pay the bills. Advertisers paying us to sponsor tweets does. Advertisers will only do that if paying to sponsor tweets results in either improving brand image or converting sales. Advertisers won't pay for ads that don't get clicked on. Political pissing matches and disinformation campaigns don't bring the k…

Do you believe the same to be true for Facebook as well? Why is Twitter encouraging outrage-engagement via the (somewhat filtered) Trending section? Why aren't you actively trying to decrease political engagement if it's a net negative?

Re: Facebook, Twitter dismantle global array of disinformation networks

#159

Post by krapp »

RandomTisk wrote: post #139
krapp wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nevertheless, there seems to be a disturbing trend in these conversations of implying that the first amendment means something it doesn't. If people want to advocate for nationalizing social media and forcing platforms to publish speech against their will, and making it illegal for them to moderate content, then they shouldn't pretend they're doing so in the spirit of the first amendment or what the founding fathers…

They have that right regardless, they just have to declare themselves publishers.

No they don't.

It's a commonly spread fallacy that only "publishers" are allowed to moderate content, and "platforms" not. The entire purpose of Section 230 is to allow platforms to moderate user-submitted content without facing legal liability for doing so. Social media platforms have always been allowed to do exactly what they're doing.

Re: Facebook, Twitter dismantle global array of disinformation networks

#160

Post by meekmind »

soindepend wrote: post #140
meekmind wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. This. Thinking is hard and it requires training and conditioning to do. I'm not talking about what to think, but rather how to think. It's an incredible convenience to delegate thinking, like the difference between spending 3 hours debugging some code versus having the answer readily available on StackOverflow. Conversely, that convenience comes with a cost of a stunted intellect, where an individual can become…

This is a tangent but is the meme about programmers being dependent on Stack Overflow really all that true? It's something I've heard about a lot -- I've been coding for fifteen years, professionally for seven, and certainly I have used Stack Overflow occasionally, but I go to the language documentation a lot more often, and honestly write a lot of code without looking at more than the source of the libraries I'm int…

That is a good question. I think it really depends on your personality. Engineers tend to be conscientious, orderly, industrious types. Being industrious typically means being a self-starter who takes the initiative and is probably self-taught.

That said, intelligence (g factor) isn't simply being conscientious. Being intelligent means that your personality is flexible and you're able to apply different aspects of your personality depending on what the situation calls for. Conversely, less intelligent people are generally stuck with the personality they have and are less able to modulate their behavior depending on the context.

Anyway, I used the StackOverflow analogy because it's more likely to resonate with the HN audience. The point was more about knowledge and relying on others as a crutch to avoid having to think for yourself. It's not inherently a bad thing, but doing it too much has consequences that may not be obvious.

Post reply on HN