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

81–90 of 520 posts

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#81

Post by bondarchuk »

cptaj wrote: post #67
raxxorrax wrote: post #60

I am sick that "hate speech" is an alleged problem because some people read something on the net they didn't like. I also don't like the people that write it. But the reaction to it is just infantile and the exchange of ideas is degraded. The nature of the medium has intrinsic properties and that means that if you broadcast opinions, you always get pushback. It doesn't mean there is or is no justification for it. It…

The problem isn't an awkward exchange of ideas. The problem is industrial-scale disinformation campaigns manipulating public opinion and discrediting every single thing you can imagine, grinding the free exchange of ideas to a halt at every turn. Its a DDOS attack on that very same free exchange of ideas you mention.

>industrial-scale disinformation campaigns manipulating public opinion and discrediting every single thing you can imagine

This is just a fancy way of saying "people saying things I don't like".

>grinding the free exchange of ideas to a halt at every turn.

How so? Like GP said, you can just not use facebook and freely exchange ideas with your peers through other channels. Sure, some of your peers might have a different opinion than you, and (gasp!) you might even be unable to change their mind, but that's just how it is.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#82

Post by blisterpeanuts »

BrianOnHN wrote: post #52
blisterpeanuts wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where can you buy assault rifles?

At the local "gun show." It's advertised on billboards all along the highway. No background check required!

Fully automatic military assault weapons? I don't think so.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#83

Post by [deleted] »

mnd999 wrote: post #49
eptcyka wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

[deleted]

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#84

Post by jordanbeiber »

refurb wrote: post #66
blisterpeanuts wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where can you buy assault rifles?

What’s an assault rifle? A normal rifle with features that scared people but have no impact on the actual lethality?

A specific compact form-factor and multiple rounds in a magazine that allow for more rapid fire than a bolt action rifle?

I know people claim "hunting" with these rifles, but I think there's a shiny toy thing at play more than utility.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#85

Post by exdsq »

contravariant wrote: post #6
exdsq wrote: 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.

But why does it become more difficult when it's centralised by numerous tech companies and not by numerous media organisations or the government itself? I don't see why FB is any different except it's easier for anyone to share stuff, and I don't see why that stuff should be a risk to democracy.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#86

Post by sdoering »

eptcyka wrote: post #62
mnd999 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

What makes you think that it's just the baddies that employ troll farms?

Because if you employ bot farms and troll hordes, you crossed the line. You left free speech (your voice should not be censored and you should be able to say your mind) in favor of amplification and agenda pushing.

At least in my personal view.

Take this forum here for example: There is a community driven mechanism that enforces some rules. Your comment can end up dead. One can decide to view dead comments, but given enough negative feedback you can be silenced here.

The community enforces values. These might change over time, but they are there, because the community does value collective freedom (freedom from trolls and such things) in a form that allows individual freedom of speech to be restricted.

On a deeper level: There are always different forms of freedom at play and valuing one above the other restricts the other necessarily.

Freedom of speech without restriction enables said actors and bot farms together with content personalisation to hinder the freedom of individuals. Because they aren't allowed to see content that amplified voices drown out or that is being hidden from their view by the algorithms.

So actually Google, Facebook and the likes are already restricting the freedom of people. And doing so under the thin guise of "fighting for freedom of speech".

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#87

Post by zby »

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.

And why the platforms silo people? Because people want it: "the implication of the Internet is that ideas are in abundance, and people will seek out what they already agree with, as opposed to accepting what is delivered to them." https://stratechery.com/2020/the-idea-adoption-curve/

Free Speech is not a supply problem it is a demand problem.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#88

Post by bondarchuk »

gjulianm wrote: post #39
throw_m239339 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 rep…

I think you forgot the main reason: journos are on twitter all day every day.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#89

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

mucholove wrote: post #41
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 altoge…

Like, the core problem that algorithmic feeds were invented to solve is still there. The issue is that a minority of your connections produce a majority of the content, and it would suck to just see that one friend over and over again in your feed/timeline/whatever.

You are essentially arguing for a social internet without filtering and search engines. Lots of people claim to want this, but the fact that no platform lets you do this leads me to believe that the revealed preferences of people are different.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#90

Post by mikewarot »

cptaj wrote: post #67
raxxorrax wrote: post #60

I am sick that "hate speech" is an alleged problem because some people read something on the net they didn't like. I also don't like the people that write it. But the reaction to it is just infantile and the exchange of ideas is degraded. The nature of the medium has intrinsic properties and that means that if you broadcast opinions, you always get pushback. It doesn't mean there is or is no justification for it. It…

The problem isn't an awkward exchange of ideas. The problem is industrial-scale disinformation campaigns manipulating public opinion and discrediting every single thing you can imagine, grinding the free exchange of ideas to a halt at every turn. Its a DDOS attack on that very same free exchange of ideas you mention.

Facebook does not allow free exchange of ideas, you have to pay to make sure your followers actually see everything you post, unlike the open web.
Post reply on HN