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

111–120 of 520 posts

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#111

Post by ingenieros »

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…

I wonder if you'd be as nonchalant with those same "terrorist deeds" if you or one of your loved ones was caught in the crossfire. We've already seen how some targeted posts by the military can spark genocide in places such as Myanmar. We've also witnessed how prolonged exposure to hate speech can drive a teenager to cross state lines and shoot two people in Kenosha, WI.

At which point do we put our libertarian fantasies aside and say enough is enough?

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#112

Post by adnzzzzZ »

onethought wrote: post #96
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…

I think this over simplifies it. People are being (unknowingly) manipulated and the sheer quantity of misinformation is being mistaken for evidence of truth. Why isn’t subliminal advertising considered free speech or free exchange of Ideas?

If people are unknowingly being manipulated how do you know you aren't being manipulated also? There are plenty of examples of manipulative and fake news coming from both traditional and alternative media.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#113

Post by josephg »

bondarchuk wrote: post #101
TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The common man?

Some of the problem is youtube promoting a 'common man' Alex Jones 15bn times because he drives youtube's advertising revenue. And some of the problem is russia running active disinformation campaigns and organising competing protesters to fight in the streets.

If this happened in the 70's, you bet people would have had a problem with it.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#114

Post by jariel »

cookieswumchorr wrote: post #63
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:…

censorship is connected to regimes who killed (and continue to kill) way more people then all the terror attacks combined. Also, if you let out governments and look at non-government terror, those who are internet-rooted, are a tiny fraction, and a joke compared to the real terror networks. It's been a year since the Halle attack, the attacker is a joke: a typical internet incel as you would picture him. Infantile, i…

"censorship is connected to regimes who killed (and continue to kill) way more people then all the terror attacks combined. "

Every state and institution in the world 'censors.

The BBC, ABC news, Fox News, the government, every corporation, Facebook, Twitter, Google.

Every single one.

Stop talking about this absolutist stuff - it's not helping the argument.

You, as an individual, can stand outside your home and say quite a lot of things before the cops will arrest you, but that doesn't mean there are not rules in the commons.

There are basic rules for civility in every institution, if you don't like them, start your own institution where you can press 'free speech' essentially to the legal maximum.

If someone tried to stop you from criticizing a politician, that would be an unnaceptable restriction but that's not happening.

If someone tried to stop you from telling your friends privately that you think COVID is fabricated by the Nazis, well, it' be bad because you have that right.

But don't have any inherent right to go on to some massive platform to tell Americans that you have evidence the COVID vaccine is killing people - if the owners of said platform don't want to let you on.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#115

Post by blisterpeanuts »

In an earlier era, people's opinions were shaped by a small number of newspapers and newscasts. Some of these old media were so biased and agenda driven that they caused wars.

Not that much has changed, except that people now rely on centralized, AI-driven funnels of information and entertainment.

Democracy has always been fragile, barely functional, easily corrupted, warped by money. The best and only way to defend and nurture it is education. Teach people to think for themselves, critical reading,logic and analysis. This is the best inoculation against totalitarianism.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#116

Post by lldbg »

duozerk wrote: post #98
lldbg wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps it was a poor choice of words considering HackerNews nitpicking, but in france display of religious symbols (such as wearing a cross) is banned in public places (mostly). I wrote it that way for effect, thinking that people would be familiar with the french laws. I have no "twisted broad exaggeration and misunderstanding" of belief. I don't think this chain of comments has a good tone, and won't reply further…

> but in france display of religious symbols (such as wearing a cross) is banned in public places That is not true; you're free to have religious symbols in public places. What you cannot do is wear them ostensibly if you're acting as an official for a public service . Teacher ? no cross/kippa/etc. while you're teaching. Cop ? same. Mayor in the process of marrying a couple ? same again. Parent helping teachers durin…

And there's the ban on burqa and niqab. In public places. You conveniently did not mention that.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#117

Post by gjulianm »

bondarchuk wrote: post #101
TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Propaganda is bad, but I very much prefer easily identifiable propaganda that the absolute circus show we have now, mainly because the former is easier to counter.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#118

Post by adnzzzzZ »

maxlamb wrote: post #103
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…

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.

Democracy also depends on elections not being rigged. There's plenty of credible evidence that things were off this election if you bothered to look into the claims. There's obviously also plenty of false stuff, but that doesn't mean that all of it is false.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#119

Post by m12k »

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 problem isn't free speech in itself. The problem is the amplification of that speech by algorithms optimizing for "engagement" which practically speaking ends up being synonymous with "conflict". The medium lends itself to spreading bullshit and outrage, not quiet reflection, empathy and 'thinking for yourself'. Lies simply scale better than truth, outrage scales better than understanding and clickbait scales better than accurate headlines. As if that's not bad enough on its own, authoritarian states have realized the potential in this, and weaponized it, by using sock puppet accounts and targeted advertisement to further amplify division and conspiracy theories, as a concerted attack on the electorate of western democracies.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#120

Post by onethought »

adnzzzzZ wrote: post #112
onethought wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this over simplifies it. People are being (unknowingly) manipulated and the sheer quantity of misinformation is being mistaken for evidence of truth. Why isn’t subliminal advertising considered free speech or free exchange of Ideas?

If people are unknowingly being manipulated how do you know you aren't being manipulated also? There are plenty of examples of manipulative and fake news coming from both traditional and alternative media.

I may be in various ways.

But that isn’t a counter argument for stopping people being manipulated.

Is your point: you could be exposed to misinformation as well so we shouldn’t stop misinformation?

(If it is. That is absurd)

Post reply on HN