Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fully automatic military assault weapons? I don't think so.
Welcome to FL USA
Where in FL USA can one legally purchase fully automatic weapons without a special federal permit?
We can have democracy or we can have Facebook
141–150 of 520 posts
Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook
#142Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is just a fancy way of saying "people saying things I don't like" Not just "I don't like", but things that "aren't true". There's a difference, and it's important. > How so? Like GP said, you can just not use facebook and freely exchange ideas with your peers through other channels. The how is that the constant exposure to lies makes people doubt everything. A lie is easy to fabricate, will create controversy,…
Maybe you are the one who has been constantly exposed to lies, and doubt everything that is true? The only way you can have a free exchange of ideas is if people are allowed to disagree, and yes this includes basic "facts" of reality. You think speech should be censured, removed, and controlled? Okay, your speech first.
Where did I say that I wanted speech censored and controlled and people not allowing to disagree? I'm saying that I disagree with social media incentivizing the spread of lies and controversy. I'm not discussing what is a lie and what is not, I am just saying that by the nature of social media the content that gets more visibility is the content that generates more engagement, not necessarily the content that is more true or has more consensus.
In other words, do I think you should be able to say that "the earth is flat"? Yes. Do I think that social media should give more visibility to content that says "the earth is flat" than to content that says "well it is not flat" just because the first generates more engagement? No. It's not the speech that's harmful, is the selective amplification that social media does.
Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I don't agree that free speech absolutism attracts totalitarians exclusively. But I do agree it will attract those that have a hard time finding a place elsewhere. Anyone who can be tolerated on twitter, which isn't a high bar, wouldn't go elsewhere unless ideologically motivated to do so (mind this doesn't necessitate horrible views, some people want to oppose censorship not because they themselves are censored). Pe…
Here's the thing, though: Societies always have norms, and norms are enforced by making norm-breaking views shunned. Letting people speak their objectionable views with no repercussions normalises those views, and makes them more acceptable.
Objectionable views HAVE to be opposed, or they will fester and grow. Polite disagreement doesn't help, because the person will just go on to post them again, and again, and again. The fact that I politely disagreed with one of them will not help with the other 99 times.
There needs to be visible consequences for breaking norms, or the norms themselves will break.
Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook
#144This 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…
Yes, and the effect is more pronounced when a site offers no other choice beyond ranking by a single hidden formula, like HN.
Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook
#145Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, you're describing a semi-automatic weapon, which requires a separate trigger pull for each shot. Fully automatic allows multiple shots with one pull of the trigger.
I don't see how this addresses anything in the parent comment? Are you trying to say they can't define assault weapons as including semi-automatics?
Yes, assault weapons are a different category, legally and technically, from semi-automatic weapons which are the majority of firearms manufactured and sold today in the U.S.
The anti-gun lobby has conflated the terms to push a blanket ban on anything that looks remotely military. But functionally, it's two separate categories and fully automatic weapons require a federal permit that takes about a year.
Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook
#146Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe people wouldn't so easily believe in alternative narratives if people in power didn't also lie all the time? No one believes in the media anymore for a reason. People don't believe in scientists anymore for a reason. People don't believe in most government officials anymore for a reason. You can find many examples of continued and relentless lies from all these classes of people over the years and decades. Is i…
Social media posts lie all the time, way more than politicians. Why do people believe those?
That depends on the post. For instance, I believe that democracy is a mistake and we should be ruled by an authoritarian king. You probably believe this to be a lie, and that I'm likely being manipulated by social media. But I believe what I believe through a series of reasonable and logical arguments from my perspective.
So why do I believe it? Because it makes sense to me. I would guess that it's the same for everyone else. By trying to prevent this lie from being spread you are rejecting the fact that I reached this conclusion in a valid manner because you don't agree with it.
Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook
#147Earlier 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).
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…
Mainstream media has gotten a lot worse in the last few decades because subscriptions have tanked and now most of their profit determined by how many clicks facebook and twitter send their way. Newspapers have to choose between competing with buzzfeed or closing their doors.
Real journalism is a casualty of social media too.
Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook
#148Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see how this addresses anything in the parent comment? Are you trying to say they can't define assault weapons as including semi-automatics?
Yes, assault weapons are a different category, legally and technically, from semi-automatic weapons which are the majority of firearms manufactured and sold today in the U.S. The anti-gun lobby has conflated the terms to push a blanket ban on anything that looks remotely military. But functionally, it's two separate categories and fully automatic weapons require a federal permit that takes about a year.
If you think that's the definition, why not clearly say that instead of playing this "let others guess what your definition is" game?
> Yes, assault weapons are a different category, legally and technically, from semi-automatic weapons
What's the clear legal definition of an assault weapon?
E.g. as referenced elsewhere in the comments here, the federal assault weapons ban clearly talked about "semi-automatic assault weapons", suggesting the legal definition was not so clearly "only full-automatics"?
Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> There's plenty of credible evidence that things were off this election if you bothered to look into the claims.
If you have any, you should spread it everywhere. I haven't seen any at all. I have debunked a ton of crap though I've seen on facebook.
Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook
#150Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe you are the one who has been constantly exposed to lies, and doubt everything that is true? The only way you can have a free exchange of ideas is if people are allowed to disagree, and yes this includes basic "facts" of reality. You think speech should be censured, removed, and controlled? Okay, your speech first.
Where did I say that I wanted speech censored and controlled and people not allowing to disagree? I'm saying that I disagree with social media incentivizing the spread of lies and controversy. I'm not discussing what is a lie and what is not, I am just saying that by the nature of social media the content that gets more visibility is the content that generates more engagement, not necessarily the content that is more…
You are not discussing what a lie is, and what is not, but someone will have to, if measures against the "selective amplification" of lies were to be implemented. That is a fact.