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

211–220 of 520 posts

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#211

Post by solaarphunk »

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.

The issue is that people are not rational actors, and their emotions can be manipulated into forming new habits. In this case, facebook's goal is maximizing time spent on site. They know if they get you into a state of emotional flow, you'll stay there for much longer. That is the purpose of ranked newsfeed. Companies just make the "relevance" argument, because it's not wrong, it's just not the whole story.

Specifically, if you had a passing interest in a controversial topic, the algorithm will make sure to sink its barbs into you, and exploit you emotionally. This is especially real for older people who didn't grow up with the internet, or people who are blind to this issue. These two groups haven't learned to moderate their emotions and question the nature, or source, of the content.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#213

Post by detaro »

nopriorarrests wrote: post #197
detaro wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I wonder why facebook usage isn't "sowing discord" in Netherlands or, say, Germany, or other EU countries? On what basis do you believe it isn't?

I haven't seen a single article even trying to suggest that politics in Germany or Netherlands is affected by Facebook is any way. (And for USA, you can see such articles on HN front page any other day, btw). The only gripe EU is having with Facebook is about privacy violations, as I can see.

HN frontpage and US news sources aren't a good indicator for what's happening in countries that dare to not speak English.

It's maybe not to the same degree, but political polarization, filter bubbles and conspiracy theories made worse through FB and other social media totally are a topic here. EDIT: I guess hate speech legislation is in a similar corner and does appear on here too.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#214

Post by raxxorrax »

lanevorockz wrote: post #105
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…

Let's be honest for a second, we saw enough leaks that upfront prove that Silicon Valley is not a political tool for radical left wing ideology. Not only the whole industry is breaking up but the state itself is going through a severe crisis. At some point we will have to face the truth. Companies should not be allowed to use platform protections to becoming lobbying companies. That's how they are able to erase peopl…

No, it certainly is not a tool for left wing ideology in any form, radical or not. The other way around I would say. They employ psychologists to tell them how to appease and use activists to foster their image.

I believe most engineers have a left wing political position for that matter, although I dislike these classifications and that doesn't mean it is still true for publicly traded companies.

And of course big tech would try to reduce anonymity, get people to sign up for their ident services, want to impose closed systems for security and "left wing" people eat that up like candy. Politicians too, although maybe for different reasons again.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#215

Post by gjulianm »

nopriorarrests wrote: post #190

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 ne…

> 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".

Yes it is. Polarization is increasing in a lot of countries, and there is heavy criticism. But while US news are exposed to the rest of the world, news from EU countries aren't as much. That's why you don't see "Facebook is damaging democracy" takes from EU countries. At least from what I see in Spain (I can't speak for other countries because I don't read french or german or dutch news) the debate on Facebook (and other social media platforms) effect on democracy is growing bigger each day, specially now with the COVID pandemic.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#216

Post by sneak »

blisterpeanuts wrote: post #141
BrianOnHN wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Welcome to FL USA

Where in FL USA can one legally purchase fully automatic weapons without a special federal permit?

Just about any federal dealer. There is no permit required to purchase fully automatic weapons in the United States; you just have to pay a transfer tax. Unfortunately processing the tax payment takes about a year, in their effort to turn it into a form of permit, but that's not what it is. Anyone (without criminal background) can pay the tax and buy one.

There is a ban on the import and manufacture of new ones (for civilian use) in place since 1986, so the ones available for purchase (by anyone, again, no "special federal permit" required) cost about 10-20x more than they would cost otherwise, which effectively restricts them to "rich people only".

They're freely available, though.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#217

Post by dwiel »

nmfisher wrote: post #182
ViViDboarder wrote: post #178

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.

Let's say a food manufacturer finds a chemical that is tasteless but addictive and starts adding it to all their food. Would you also argue that this is very clearly food the people want to consume?

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#218

Post by mikkergp »

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.

"I wrote this song so people would listen to it and I would make money." "I made this TV show so people would watch it and I'd make money."

It seems like we're trying to force the input to be wrong as opposed to just acknowledging that the output is wrong. Facebook is doing the same "capitalistically moral" thing everyone else is doing, building something people want so that they make money. The input doesn't have to be "theoretically wrong" for the output to still be wrong. Good intentions and all that.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#219

Post by arethuza »

FriedrichN wrote: post #192
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…

Except for the fact with journalism you know who's responsible for the bit they publish. And that the publisher can't hide behind the fact that they're 'not responsible for user generated content'. In most countries media is regulated, you're not allowed to advertise everywhere or publish lies. When Facebook says 'free speech' they actually mean 'free enterprise'.

And what is published is visible to everyone - who knows what is in targetted ads other than the people who are targetted?

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#220

Post by speeder »

nopriorarrests wrote: post #190

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 ne…

I am from Brazil, and here Facebook is a problem too...

We even have our supreme court doing blatantly inconstitutional things because they are upset with Facebook (and Whatsapp).

Also during the Gamergate debacle, there was some high profile news about a "gamergater" that sent actual death threats to people (many people falsely claim to have received death threats), when police caught the guy, it was a Brazillian leftist troll, that thought it would be hilarious to watch whatever was going on in Facebook and try to outviralize viral posts by doing whatever would stoke more controversy (in this case, pretending to be right wing, sending death threats to left wingers, and watch the two sides fight).

Post reply on HN