We can have democracy or we can have Facebook • Hacker News Board

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#41

Post by mucholove » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 11:40 AM UTC

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:…

Facebook is not the same as free speech.

Facebook has an algorithm which highlights outrageous and livid claims. These often tend to be false.

Your Facebook feed is curated to look like this—something a “traditional” publisher can’t do because of libel laws, etc.

What needs to happen? To my eye this is simple—all algorithmic publishing should be held to the same standard as a newspaper or even better—abolished altogether. Let’s keep it chronological.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#42

Post by solaarphunk » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 11:40 AM UTC

This person is confusing ranked newsfeeds with free speech. Ranked newsfeeds are the actual poison, because they are their own form of censorship and amplification for exploitative purposes.

It’s fine if someone says something horrible or false on the internet, it’s not fine if a ranked newsfeed amplifies that message to millions of people because it’s engaging.

This free speech or not argument is a complete straw man.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#43

Post by Majestic121 » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 11:41 AM UTC

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 not banned in France, that's a great misunderstanding of the concept of laicity.

Laicity means that religion is kept away from the State, it has no impact whatsoever on private practice and definitely nothing to do with it being 'banned'

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#44

Post by blisterpeanuts » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 11:41 AM UTC

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:…

Are you saying there would have been fewer mass shooting incidents, had social networks exercised stricter content control?

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#45

Post by user-the-name » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 11:43 AM UTC

eptcyka wrote: post #29

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:…

Is your argument that free speech exclusively attracts the scum of the earth? Maybe these hate bubbles wouldn't proliferate if they had to co-exist on a platform with a diverse set of opinions. These people are heavily outnumbered. But of course, all the major platforms are so successful because they aggressively silo people into pigeonholes via curation.

The argument is that free speech absolutism attracts totalitarianism that wants free speech for itself specifically, and will hide behind the demand for free speech at the expense of many other things, include the speech of those it disagrees with.

And we should not put up with that kind of dishonesty.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#46

Post by swiley » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 11:43 AM UTC

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:…

Facebook doesn't have free speech, it curates things to align with your views and that's why everyone on it appears reasonable to careless people.

4chan has free speech and no one takes it seriously because it becomes obvious who you're talking to.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#47

Post by blisterpeanuts » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 11:43 AM UTC

anovikov wrote: post #34

lldbg wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.... Wh…

Where can you buy assault rifles?

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#48

Post by chimpansteve » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 11:43 AM UTC

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 a bizarre statement. Religion is not banned in France.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#49

Post by mnd999 » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 11:44 AM UTC

eptcyka wrote: post #29

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:…

Is your argument that free speech exclusively attracts the scum of the earth? Maybe these hate bubbles wouldn't proliferate if they had to co-exist on a platform with a diverse set of opinions. These people are heavily outnumbered. But of course, all the major platforms are so successful because they aggressively silo people into pigeonholes via curation.

They’re not outnumbered though. They’re backed up by sock puppet accounts, nation state funded propaganda / troll organisations out to cause trouble and well funded PR companies pushing populist agendas.

It’s not a question of free speech vs censorship, it’s which type censorship do you prefer? The corporate kind or the shitposting bullying trolling kind?

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#50

Post by wccrawford » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 11:45 AM UTC

eptcyka wrote: post #29

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:…

Is your argument that free speech exclusively attracts the scum of the earth? Maybe these hate bubbles wouldn't proliferate if they had to co-exist on a platform with a diverse set of opinions. These people are heavily outnumbered. But of course, all the major platforms are so successful because they aggressively silo people into pigeonholes via curation.

Not the OP, but no, not "exclusively". But sites that espouse that principle end up attracting them in droves because they're shunned everywhere else.

And then people who believe in free speech but don't intend to use it to be assholes don't feel comfortable there, further making those sites hives of ... well, whatever bad adjective you want to assign.