Live data from Hacker News

We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

the.ink

201–210 of 520 posts

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#201
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).

Do you think that the majority of adults and children in the United States right now are highly valuing education, and pushing their politicians harder than corporate interests, to improve our education such that critical thinking is a top priority going forward?

Is that the value system that is being streamed into each citizen's eyeballs at this moment?

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

No, if users didn't like anything they see on Facebook, they'd log off. Facebook optimizes to make money and they can't make money if people leave, so they try to avoid that scenario.

But that doesn't mean all content is something people want to see, because Facebook can't make money either if users only consume content that doesn't make Facebook money, so they try to avoid that scenario.

The profit-maximizing strategy is to show users a mixture of content they like (to keep them around) and money-making content, preferably all jumbled together so people can't easily tell the difference. (The same calculation is behind Google deemphasizing the difference between paid search ads and actual results.)

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ma…

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

Because reality is not so clear cut as "pigs grow on trees". No one is claiming anything as ludicrous as pigs grow on trees in our political debates. Disagreeing with most of the narrative on climate change is not the same as saying pigs grow on trees, for instance.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#204

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.

[deleted]

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

"If the users didn't like, they'd log off."

Because people are perfectly rational and will never do something when they aren't particularly enjoying it and know is bad for them.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#206
post #65

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.

What utility is there?

The only utility Facebook gives me is Messenger, which I have to use because several family members use it. The only utility it offers over other messaging platforms is slightly better support for media and GIFs (maybe?) And network effects. I would really prefer they join me where I am, on Discord, which is where my local friends, neighbors and online friends go to exchange messages. (It doesn't support video sharing as well/easily as Messenger.)

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#207

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…

> Not that much has changed,

A lot has changed. If you didn't like a newspaper or a broadcast, you stopped seeing it. They built a reputation that they had to maintain somewhat. You knew most of the time who was behind each piece.

Now? You see content that a lot of people dislike because it generates controversy and engagement and attacks, lies get way more exposure than truths. A lot of publications come from unknown sources, with no reputation, so they can lie without consequences. You don't know who wrote something and the interests they might have.

> The best and only way to defend and nurture it is education. Teach people to think for themselves, critical reading,logic and analysis.

What is more probable, that social media has completely changed the type of content that people see or that education has plummeted in a decade or two?

Education is not the solution: no single person can be educated enough to make informed decisions on all the topics they are exposed to in a single day. We don't even have the time to do that! We need to revert the changes that social media has created in our information diet, that's the solution. And we need to start by forcing social media companies to stop maximizing engagement over everything, show people only the content they explicitly subscribed to (no 'look at this comment someone made on this post of a page you don't follow'), and stop editorializing the priority of that content via algorithms to maximize engagement.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

If everyone is being manipulated how do you stop misinformation in a fair manner? We can't even agree on what is information and what is misinformation. Surely you understand how stopping misinformation is bad if people can't agree on what it actually is, right?

There are some pretty easy non controversial ones. Controversial ones can prove themselves with facts/science.

I didn’t agree that everyone is being manipulated, nor did you show that.

There is objective truth, that is the bar for misinformation.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook is not the same as free speech. Facebook has an algorithm which highlights outrageous and livid claims. These often tend to be false. Your Facebook feed is curated to look like this—something a “traditional” publisher can’t do because of libel laws, etc. What needs to happen? To my eye this is simple—all algorithmic publishing should be held to the same standard as a newspaper or even better—abolished altoge…

Like, the core problem that algorithmic feeds were invented to solve is still there. The issue is that a minority of your connections produce a majority of the content, and it would suck to just see that one friend over and over again in your feed/timeline/whatever. You are essentially arguing for a social internet without filtering and search engines. Lots of people claim to want this, but the fact that no platform…

Heroin is illegal for a reason. We have an opioid epidemic for a reason

You can choose to see it as a revealed preference or you can call it unhinged addiction.

I am in the “unhinged addiction” camp.

We create and shape markets by defining the rules. As an example the supposedly free NYSE will stop trading if a stock is going down a certain percentage points in a day.

Post reply on HN