Live data from Hacker News

We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

the.ink

1–10 of 520 posts

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#3
How can freedom of speech be the downfall of democracy? Surely Facebook and democracy can coexist if we get better at teaching people to think for themselves?

I don’t like the idea democracy can only survive if governments censor and remove platforms for spreading information (however false that may be).

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#6
post #3

How can freedom of speech be the downfall of democracy? Surely Facebook and democracy can coexist if we get better at teaching people to think for themselves? I don’t like the idea democracy can only survive if governments censor and remove platforms for spreading information (however false that may be).

The central point of the article is that Facebook is not free. Yes you can have free speech and democracy but free speech becomes rather more difficult when its biggest medium is a privately controlled monopoly.

Fake-news and the like aren't mentioned in the article.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#7
The case for free speech absolutism has never looked more questionable than it does right now. Every online platform that has tried to market itself as a “bastion of free speech” has become overrun with the absolute worst of society and as of 2020 is directly implicated in multiple real life terrorist attacks including most recently in the Nez Zealand government’s post-mortem on the Christchurch shootings here https://christchurchattack.royalcommission.nz/the-report

We already have rules regarding what we consider to be acceptable both in general society and in a legal context with regards to free speech so the line in the sand already exists.

Trying to wave away this debate by just shouting “censorship” contributes nothing meaningful to a debate that is sorely missing from society.

Edit: There are some interesting points in the replies that I think could be answered with some clarifications.

I think there is something that is very unique about social media specifically that should have a higher standard about it than other forms of speech. My argument is not at all about trying to force "the one acceptable point of view" or anything like that. History has a long long list of ideas that were once considered dangerous that not only stood the test of time but instead became something much more and in order to continue having that diversity of opinion is generally a good thing.

There are fundamental problems with how the economics of a social media platform function. Never before has a tool existed that allowed everyone to broadcast any unfiltered thought they had to everyone else in the world with basically zero effort.

Furthermore, they can do this both anonymously and without any kind of repercussion. That sounds great in theory as some libertarian fantasy where you might expect the "marketplace of ideas" to take care of everything and the cream would rise to the top. The reality of what that looks like in 2020 however is actually very different and I think now would be a great time to have that discussion about what guardrails we can all generally agree on that would address some of the many downsides that have come out of this experiment so far.

All of the current iterations of major social networks came pretty much exclusively from a group of people who had zero background in anything then Computer Science. At no point have we reached out to groups like sociologists, ethicists, historians, psychologists or anyone else who might have some really valuable thoughts on how to arrange anonymous social interactions in a way that might not devolve into the shit fight we have on our hands currently.

As an example Facebook was started by a guy who by all accounts is not exactly known for having great social skills where he could rate women on campus. Twitter is a platform that purposely doesn't allow for nuance. I think they were both a terrible starting point and that perhaps we should rethink what social media COULD look like from the ground up and learning from all of the mistakes we made with it the first time around.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#8
post #3

How can freedom of speech be the downfall of democracy? Surely Facebook and democracy can coexist if we get better at teaching people to think for themselves? I don’t like the idea democracy can only survive if governments censor and remove platforms for spreading information (however false that may be).

Facebook isn't "Free Speech" in the traditional sense, it is a massive AI system designed to funnel people towards controversy and lies (because it turns out controversy and lies get the highest engagement).

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#9
I think the "Facebook bad" horse has been beaten down to Earth's inner core.

Yes, Facebook has its downsides just as any other social platform would. Yes, you can live without it. But I don't believe that the negatives Facebook has enabled comes close to the utility it has provided to society.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#10
There article is reasonable and it just asks to apply laws that already exist. I am surprised how much false advertising is allowed on all this platforms. Chinese counterfeit products sold on Amazon, Russian state propaganda promoted by Facebook, ... The judicial system and the law need to catch-up with new technologies. USA companies are becoming less competitive and more hostile to its own users and costumers. USA in general has an increasing image problem as many people defend to lie and scam customers. Trust is extremely important for a well functioning society and even more to do business.
Post reply on HN