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

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#151

Post by josephg » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 12:43 PM UTC

exdsq wrote: post #125

m12k wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bet…

Sure, but is the internet to blame then? Everyone ends up in their own echo chamber, even us on HN right? And the media have been doing this for decades too... Maybe not to this level but I find it hard to believe democracy is that brittle, and I worry the narrative to remove sources of sharing info freely is actually anti-democratic (all news coming from 'authorised sources' at its most extreme).

> Sure, but is the internet to blame then?

Youtube has 55 hours uploaded every minute (iirc). Its not "the internet"'s fault that, of all the content available youtube recommended Alex Jones's videos 15 billion times. Or that facebook has been recommending and promoting antivaxer content and communities to mothers' groups. (And specifically mothers who its algorithms think might be taken in by conspiracy thinking).

The blame lies with our peers who work at those companies. And every manager who prioritises their own advertising profits over healthy sensemaking amongst their billions of users.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#152

Post by AzzieElbab » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 12:46 PM UTC

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.

How is that different from the newspapers and cable news?

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#153

Post by MonAlternatiu » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 12:46 PM UTC

exdsq wrote: post #85

contravariant wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Many reasons.

- For one when a news article is incorrect it is very easy to hold accountable the source of that information. How many people keep track of who said what on the internet?

- Fake Information takes more time to respond to than true information. False news travels 6 times faster (..) than truthful news [0].

- Media has a cycle of information that is way slower and more curated (even if manipulative) which allows true information to be heard louder.

- It's becoming easier and easier to fake image, video, and audio in a way never seen before [1].

- It's way easier for platforms like FB and Twitter and YT to make you spiral down a rabbit hole of similar content. Sure, this did happen in the past, but the current level of detailed recommendations makes it really easy for people to lose context inside their bubble.

- People are not machines, if they hear a message many times by different sources that trigger the right emotional responses they will believe it to be true. Now group every point and compound it by a lot of consumption and ingest it into monkey-like brains :)

[0]: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/false-news-travels-6-ti...

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmUC4m6w1wo

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#154

Post by humanrebar » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 12:47 PM UTC

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…

The article is saying monopoly is private government so Facebook is in opposition with democracy. "Free speech" doesn't appear in the article as a phrase. There seems to be more concern with the disruption of previous business models for journalism. Towards the end of the article, there is a little about centralized curation of information (hiding a candidate from view, etc.), which is tangential to free speech, I suppose, but not exactly the same thing.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#155

Post by tyu2 » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 12:48 PM UTC

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…

> This is about political PR machines with unusual wealth lying to Facebook users on an industrial scale to control what they believe and how they act.

It doesn't control how people act, but for the rest this is exactly what mass media was always doing, influencing beliefs and opinions of the masses, never able to criticize powerful and wealthy where it truly mattered. Facebook only made this space a bit more diverse, actually letting some criticism in, weakening mass media influence. But it's ridiculous to think this affected "democracy", the US isn't even considered to be a democracy outside of the US, but more like a capitalist-ruled police country.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#156

Post by maxlamb » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 12:50 PM UTC

adnzzzzZ wrote: post #118

maxlamb wrote: post #103

Earlier 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.

I haven’t see any credible evidence. Neither has the Justice Department. I wonder if it’s possible that a president who has a history of lying dozens of times a day is lying again...

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#157

Post by Renaud » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 12:51 PM UTC

lldbg wrote: post #116

duozerk wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

It's banned (not just in France) because there is are existing laws against face-covering and religion is not above that.

There is also a perfectly rational thinking behind a reciprocity of rights: if you can see me but I can't see you then we're not equal.

There are also fierce debates around the role of women, ensuring equal opportunities in society, and the fact that ideology (whether religious or not) should not remove citizens from their rights and duties.

Of course, any of this is always open for debatable, and it is debated, at length, politically, socially, philosophically and these issues are always in flux, between those who want more restrictions in the name of greater freedom for all, and those who want less in the name of greater freedom for all.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#158

Post by salimmadjd » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 12:52 PM UTC

blisterpeanuts wrote: post #115

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…

Agreed! The mainstream media has no problem with disinformation, it only has a problem with democratization of disinformation.

With social media more people have access and some amount of power as the $billion media entities, and the old guards don’t like it.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#159

Post by jeltz » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 12:55 PM UTC

lebaux wrote: post #77

gjulianm wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Very succinct description of twitter. I use it mainly for work and I mostly see work related stuff that is trending. Facebook likes mashing your whole life together, so one post is from a group, another from your high school weirdo that sells MLM products and another one from your racist uncle. Honestly, Google+ "circle" concept was ahead of its time and I will die on this hill.

I do not think many will disagree about circles. Having circles would make Facebook so much better, but presumably they do not think that that would make them any money.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#160

Post by amadeuspagel » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 12:56 PM UTC

> The business model is to divert revenue that used to go to newspapers and publishers to themselves. And so by manipulating people in this specific way that they do, which is to keep them using their system and keep surveilling them so that they can target them with ads, they are, in the process, crushing newspapers and publishers, who no longer have any financing, particularly local newspapers and niche publications like Black-owned newspapers.

Is there any business this entitled? Imagine a bookstore owner describing amazon's business model as diverting revenue that used to go to bookstores, particularly black-owned backstores, to themselves. Somehow the revenue flows, like water, it used to flow to newspapers, and now it flows to facebook. I'm glad at least that the interview skips over bots, russians and algorithms and goes straight to the point, which is that people like matt make less money because everyone can share their views now, and people find their friends rants just as entertaining as matts.