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

We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

the.ink

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 520 posts

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#31

Post by johnchristopher »

daniellarusso wrote: post #13
mhoad wrote: post #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:…

I feel like we are at the point where it is now defensible to yell ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater, because ‘it is my constitutional right.’ A slight exaggeration.

You mean like that https://twitter.com/chadloder/status/1280489063074545667 ?

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#33

Post by NoOneNew »

mhoad wrote: post #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:…

Except speech that illicits violence is already considered illegal in most free speech societies. More censorship would not have stopped those kinds of atrocities. Human beings just generally suck.

The interesting argument isn't really about the mechanism of free speech anymore, it's the scale. Anyone can have a global platform without any real effort these days. Most of the famous internet people would never have been a blip 20 or 30 years ago. There is something to say about the need for some sort of gatekeeping, but theres also more arguments that counter the benefits. The problem with Facebook, Twitter and the rest of their ilk is the fact they benefit from radicalism of some sort. Take a step away from politics. Who are the popular folks on social media for any subject? The people who are really into whatever it is. They're fanatical about their craft or topic. They then try to show how great it is as to have others appreciate it, do it themselves or fund that influencer's endeavors. Radicalizing the audience. When it comes to ant farms, drone racing, game dev, game plays, growing hot peppers, the dangers only go so far in radicalizing an audience. Apply the same thing to politics and you get psychopaths. Why? I'm not smart enough right now to answer that, but I recognize that social media requires it. That's how they get the views, the ad sales and that sweet sweet user data. They won't give it up, no matter what rhetoric they pull out of their ass and throw in our face. The worst part, they'll agree to censorship, but to their own flavor. Current free speech generally requires you dont talk about hurting or killing someone or directly lie about something specific (libel, slander). Current media platforms, both traditional and social, believe those rules only apply when their group is the victim. When it's those "others", it's okay to be a complete dick and break the law. This goes for all political parties, they're all equally assholes. Free speech laws are meant to affect everyone evenly (naive, I know) when it comes to the gov intervening. Sadly, it's technically true that private corps dont have to play by the same rules. But when the corporation can influence the gov, where is that line drawn? On top, corps influencing gov, where is that line drawn too? This whole thing is a mess. We should go back to being hunter gatherers and fight bears for blueberries.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#34

Post by anovikov »

lldbg wrote: post #26
mhoad wrote: post #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:…

To me, the case for free speech has never looked as good. A few (even hundreds) of murders are an acceptable cost of free speech. Restricted speech has killed millions. Little by little the western freedoms are being taken away. And you want it to go faster? Rap music which idolizes violence is allowed, despite thousands dying every year in connection to crimimal enterprise. The case to ban rap is just as naive as th…

The free speech is well... a lot like right to bear arms. While you only had muskets, right to bear arms had a clear benefit (ability to quickly raise reasonably trained militia ready to fight in days) and little risks. Now that you can buy assault rifles, and war has become so high-tech that people who are trained to use small arms and nothing else aren't of any benefit in it - it has become a different thing.... Which is not to say i am against 2nd Amendment, just that the situation changed and concern of many people are understandable.

Same is free speech: when actually exercising this right was about printing books of pamphlets that meant a certain level of financial and intellectual barrier to it, free speech was clearly all benefits and no risks. Now that literally anyone can invent his own conspiracy theory and post it on facebook - and with well, intellectual majority driving the views and rankings of them so smart content ends up unnoticed coz it's so nerdy - people are right to be concerned.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#35

Post by raxxorrax »

mhoad wrote: post #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:…

I think this is plainly wrong that all online platforms are overrun. A minority of platforms is, with a majority of users perhaps.

And yet we already censor beyond that regarding health and voting issues that is certainly NOT the line that is drawn in the sand legally. This is a fact and a very bad development.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#36

Post by cyldefrog »

Maybe someone who works or has worked the big F can answer this: what do FB employees think about news like this and how the world sees what they do? Have they drank the kool aid and think facebook is great for the world or just think that the work they specifically do doesn't cause the negatives?

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#37

Post by redis_mlc »

lldbg wrote: post #28
dextralt wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The case for freedom of religion has never looked more questionable than it does right now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism_in_Europe Trying to wave away this debate by just shouting “RACIST! NAZI!” contributes nothing meaningful to a debate that is sorely missing from society. Edit: why is this controversial and the post I'm replying to not? We both advocate the exact same thing: to abolish a foundin…

Religion is already banned in places such as France. Did not do them much good. A ban on free speech will be equally as effective.

> Religion is already banned in places such as France.

No. France is ultra-secular, and does not ask religion when doing their census.

However, most Western countries want Saudi Arabia to stop sending radical imams, including France and the USA.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#38

Post by CyberRabbi »

> The business model is to divert revenue that used to go to newspapers and publishers to themselves.

And there you have it. Anything that threatens the position of media companies is always portrayed as an attack against Democracy.

If choosing democracy means shutting down the free flow of information between individuals on social media sites like Facebook, then my vote is for Facebook.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#39

Post by gjulianm »

throw_m239339 wrote: post #12
CJefferson wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Twitter is even worse because of the format. At least with facebook people can have their own private spaces with only the people they trully know. Twitter is a just a machine to get people outraged and pissed off and yell at each other. Yet I see very little pieces written against Twitter, probably because Twitter bought the media with the blue check system, creating an 'elite' class within Twitter.

I think there are several reasons:

- Twitter relationships are based on interests mostly. If I follow people who tweet about math I will see tweets about math. Facebook relationships are based on real-life relationships so the topics in my news feed will be more heterogeneous.

- In Twitter don't see as many content from people I don't follow directly. Sometimes I will see tweets that other of my followed liked or replied to, but it's a minority. In Facebook I end up seeing a lot of comments of people I follow in other publications.

- The suggestion engine of Twitter is not as aggresive as Facebook's. Right now I have three suggestions of profiles to follow (people who follow me or profiles I've visited before), a few trending topics which can be mostly ignored, and that's it. Facebook is constantly suggesting me pages to follow and friends to add (people I don't know at all) and groups to join.

- Twitter is more straightforward in the content you get shown. Yeah, they changed things with the inclusion of tweets liked by other people and replies, but most of the time you see tweets of people you follow. Facebook, however, does this weird thing where it shows you only the content you're more likely to engage with. If that content is conspiracy theories, so be it, even if that means you don't see innocent updates from your friends.

- Privacy controls on Twitter feel easier. Make your account private and that's it, instead of five different controls for each thing you might or might not do on Facebook. Muting and blocking accounts, notifications and keywords also feels easier.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#40

Post by Renaud »

lldbg wrote: post #28
dextralt wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The case for freedom of religion has never looked more questionable than it does right now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism_in_Europe Trying to wave away this debate by just shouting “RACIST! NAZI!” contributes nothing meaningful to a debate that is sorely missing from society. Edit: why is this controversial and the post I'm replying to not? We both advocate the exact same thing: to abolish a foundin…

Religion is already banned in places such as France. Did not do them much good. A ban on free speech will be equally as effective.

What do you mean Religion is banned in France? I'm curious about what sort of twisted broad exaggeration and misunderstanding do you have to believe to drop something like that?
Post reply on HN