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

181–190 of 520 posts

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#181

Post by hezag »

amadeuspagel wrote: post #164
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…

I don't understand the obsession some people have with ranked newsfeeds. I don't see what's wrong with showing people content they want. What content that is always depends on the user themselves. If they've liked a lot of horrible stuff before, they'll get more horrible stuff, if they've liked a lot of thoughtful stuff before, they'll get more thoughtful stuff.

> I don't see what's wrong with showing people content they want.

But ranked newsfeeds are not about showing people content they want, but about showing people content that will generate more revenue for the company.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#182

Post by nmfisher »

ViViDboarder wrote: post #178
amadeuspagel wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand the obsession some people have with ranked newsfeeds. I don't see what's wrong with showing people content they want. What content that is always depends on the user themselves. If they've liked a lot of horrible stuff before, they'll get more horrible stuff, if they've liked a lot of thoughtful stuff before, they'll get more thoughtful stuff.

> I don't see what's wrong with showing people content they want. Showing them what who wants? The users? That’s be great, but today they are trained to show what the company wants, and the company wants to keep you on the site as long as possible to generate ad clicks. It’s designed for making you spiral into a topic.

If the users didn't like, they'd log off. Facebook optimizes to avoid that scenario.

I know you don't like it, but this very clearly is content that people want to consume.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#183

Post by eeZah7Ux »

firepoet wrote: post #69
feralimal wrote: post #24

Yuck. Neither democracy nor facebook, thanks. Nor any nannying or moralising about hate speech. Sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me. Or you.

Boy do I hate that phrase. It's absolutely incorrect from a neuroscience perspective. Words can in fact hurt you, and, depending on circumstances, cause long term psychological damage. Here's a place to start to learn more if you want: https://www.td.org/insights/the-neuroscience-of-reward-and-t...

Case in point: hate speech like death threats can be so harmful that is made illegal almost everywhere in the world.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#184

Post by heyoo »

TheAdamAndChe wrote: post #75
anovikov wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The free speech is well... a lot like right to bear arms. While you only had muskets, right to bear arms had a clear benefit (ability to quickly raise reasonably trained militia ready to fight in days) and little risks. Now that you can buy assault rifles, and war has become so high-tech that people who are trained to use small arms and nothing else aren't of any benefit in it - it has become a different thing.... Wh…

Now that literally anyone can invent his own conspiracy theory and post it on facebook... people are right to be concerned. People always had the right and capacity to make conspiracy theories. They deeply believed myths, and could just as easily be manipulated. Look at the Salem witch trials. Look at the conspiracies that sprung up from the moon landing or the assassination of JFK.

The difference is in Facebook amplifying the content's reach just because it is controversial and generates interactions.

Most serious media outlets care about the truth of the content they share. Facebook simply does not.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#185

Post by aethertron »

3131s wrote: post #144
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…

Yes, and the effect is more pronounced when a site offers no other choice beyond ranking by a single hidden formula, like HN.

In the case of HN, what is the bad effect?

HN's formula may be hidden but I think we have a good sense of its inputs: recency, upvotes, moderation to remove crap, and perhaps some boosting to promote YC interests.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#186

Post by gjulianm »

lldbg wrote: post #150
gjulianm wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> You are not discussing what a lie is

That's precisely the point I'm making, nobody needs to decide what is a lie or what is not. Social media amplifies lies not by knowing what is a lie, but because of their nature. Lies generate more controversy and more discussion, true facts generate agreement but not a lot of discussion and engagement. Reduce the importance of "engagement metrics" in the algorithms that show you content, make them as straightforward as possible (chronological order for example), reduce or eliminate suggestions of "content you might like" and only show content you explicitly subscribed to. At no point anyone needs to say "this is a lie/truth", you just need to change incentives.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#187

Post by anovikov »

short_sells_poo wrote: post #95
anovikov wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The free speech is well... a lot like right to bear arms. While you only had muskets, right to bear arms had a clear benefit (ability to quickly raise reasonably trained militia ready to fight in days) and little risks. Now that you can buy assault rifles, and war has become so high-tech that people who are trained to use small arms and nothing else aren't of any benefit in it - it has become a different thing.... Wh…

> Same is free speech: when actually exercising this right was about printing books of pamphlets that meant a certain level of financial and intellectual barrier to it, free speech was clearly all benefits and no risks. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but this is also a very dangerous approach in my opinion. What you seem to be saying is: "as long as only the well-off - and therefore likely to be educated -…

That's the thing: the concept of "human rights" was born in 1700s exactly because it was technologically limited to the people who invented it: the elites (more often then not, slaveholding elites!). It's just now it backfires because technology changed in the way everyone can use it.

And then again, it is mass democracy, which was always a mistake, and if it didn't exist many of the problems we have now won't exist either, it's entirely fair if voting is limited to landowners who have land giving no less than $X annual rent, the way it was in late 1700s-early 1800s America. And even more so when we have massive social programs so democracy becomes a death trap of freeloaders voting for even more free stuff.

What is the realistic exit from it? I believe that Chinese way relies too much on individual obedience so culturally impossible in any Western country. Returning to democracy for the elites and human rights for the (sub)elites too, is impossible because it's a catch-22: people won't vote for it.

Maybe something like Putinism is a good way out: keep democracy on paper but make sure actual voting is irrelevant, keep free speech on paper but make sure "right" content is ranked better than "wrong" (this is how Russian social media, which is KGB-owned, works, after VK.com acquisition). Of course it can't also work without some countries remaining true democracies - just kept afloat, with their social programs, with massive amounts of stolen money - because the elites need safe places to live in, after all.

This way, we will return to the "good old" American system of 200 years ago - except geographically, rather than racially, segregated.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#188

Post by XorNot »

dTal wrote: post #99
XorNot wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free speech is fine provided the multiplier everyone is given is exactly 1. Imagine Facebook with no comments, everyone just has exactly the one status they can update (and somehow their are no fake accounts). But that's not what any of these platforms are, so really it's speech for whoever has the fastest script.

This is insightful, but it's more complicated than that. In the same way that people with money find it easier to make more money, people with social influence can leverage that to obtain more social influence. It's a positive feedback loop. The "multiplier" is never 1.

But that's the point: social influence is meant to be what free speech levels the playing field for. Can you persuade others to repeat and defend your ideas and influence them, and idea value is provided in part by how many other people are talking about it.

With automated bots, fake accounts etc the attempt is to create this illusion.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#189

Post by gjulianm »

adnzzzzZ wrote: post #146
gjulianm wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 every…

> I believe that democracy is a mistake and we should be ruled by an authoritarian king. You probably believe this to be a lie

That's an opinion, not a lie. A lie would be saying "pigs grow on trees", "in a monarchy the king is chosen in an election every four years" or "the earth is flat", to put some examples.

> So why do I believe it? Because it makes sense to me.

What is it then, people believe lies because it makes sense to them or because other people lie?

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#190

Post by nopriorarrests »

Honestly, americans who are thinking in all seriousness that "we can have democracy or we can have Facebook" are just deluding themselves.

I wonder why facebook usage isn't "sowing discord" in Netherlands or, say, Germany, or other EU countries? From what I know, Facebook makes some real euros there, so adoption rate is quite high, but still, democracy is not "under attack" in these countries because of "automated newsfeed".

Consider these countries as a control group for "facebook being bad for democracy" test.

Maybe US should take a hard look into a mirror and accept the fact that it is very polarized country, not very cohesive society, with very little common ground (if any at all) between different factions, and facebook just shows this fact.

Don't blame the mirror for what you see in it.

Post reply on HN