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

101–110 of 520 posts

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#101

Post by bondarchuk »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #93
bondarchuk wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 diffe…

You seem amusingly unaware of how various organisations of questionable intent have farmed microtargeting to influence elections and referendums. If this was "people saying things I don't like" it would be absolutely fine. People say things I don't like on HN all the time, and I either ignore them or debate with them - which is how it should be. But that's not what this is about. This is about political PR machines w…

>But perhaps you think lying to people on an industrial scale is ok?

Nobody seemed to have this much of a problem with propaganda back when the common man did not have access to it.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#102

Post by jraby3 »

solaarphunk wrote: post #42

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 ma…

Exactly. Facebook along with google, Twitter, etc. become an echo chamber based on their tracking your precious history of what interested you.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#103

Post by maxlamb »

bondarchuk wrote: post #81
cptaj wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 diffe…

I think OP is referring to things like coordinated propagation of articles/post about how Trump won this election, and that the election was rigged. Democracy depends on most citizens believing the election process is fair and free so if some organization is spending tens of millions of dollars and using psychographics to convince people otherwise, they are by definition trying to destroy the concept of democracy.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#104

Post by jariel »

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:…

Nobody is asking for free speech absolution.

Facebook already has tons of policies for civil conduct that will get you the boot.

Every platform does.

This was never a case of free speech absolution - I think those doing that are straw manning it a little bit because they want to stop the ability for people to have controversial opinions.

'The Challenge' probably boils down to how to deal with otherwise nominal speech, that at scale, can have problems.

For example, total fabrications about COVID vaccines.

Having the opinion: "I think the vaccine is harmful" - is not so bad - hey, it's just an opinion.

But when you make a vide with all sorts of lies in it, and it causes 200M people to believe the vaccine is an instrument of government control and that it has nothing to do with COVID etc. ... well then it becomes a public health issue.

That's a problem.

When foreign actors use to misinform to change the outcomes of elections, obviously that's a problem.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#105

Post by lanevorockz »

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…

Let's be honest for a second, we saw enough leaks that upfront prove that Silicon Valley is not a political tool for radical left wing ideology. Not only the whole industry is breaking up but the state itself is going through a severe crisis.

At some point we will have to face the truth. Companies should not be allowed to use platform protections to becoming lobbying companies. That's how they are able to erase people like Bernie, Tulsi, Wang ... they keep pushing crony politicians that can be easily bought up.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#106

Post by op03 »

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:…

The debate should really be about the reward system - the like counter - thats the only new thing Facebook has injected into society.

It props up all kinds of things good and bad and Social Media execs have fallen into a pattern where they take credit for the good (using the good to defend the Like Counter) and pretend that the bad has nothing to do with the Like Counter.

Old social norms go out the window because everyone is busy pointing at the Like counts they have accumulated to justify their actions and behavior.

So we are at a stalemate on every debate.

Social media companies will talk about everything under the sun other than what happens to society built on top of a like counter.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#107

Post by berdario »

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…

> Restricted speech has killed millions.

You don't need to restrict speech to kill millions, you just need to have a louder voice than the people you are oppressing, deafening out anyone who might otherwise listen to them.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#108

Post by dxdm »

bondarchuk wrote: post #81
cptaj wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 diffe…

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

No it's not, unless you also think somebody aiming a high pressure fire hose at you is just a fancy way of moisturizing your face. There are differences in quality and quantity that you're just glossing over by claiming that some generalization applies.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#109

Post by dingaling »

CJefferson wrote: post #8
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).

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).

Mainstream media is no better, look at how many pages of newspapers are dedicated to columnists, editorials and opinions instead of news. Why aren't they being criticised? It's exactly the same principle.

In the end it comes down to the fact that people are being conditioned that they should have an opinion or position on everything, because "everything is politics". And many people fall for that and therefore search around for some indication on what opinions are out there.

Instead we should be propagating the message that it's entirely fine not to have an opinion on something that doesn't affect you. Indifference is actually a virtue.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#110

Post by primroot »

danjac wrote: post #15
Mysterise wrote: post #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.

I'm sure it's a comfort to the victims of the Rohingya genocide that your mother has a platform to share photos of her grandkids.

In that case, why not blame Hillary Clinton for normalizing relations with the genocidal state, so that American corporations could have access to a new market?
Post reply on HN