Live data from Hacker News

We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

the.ink

261–270 of 520 posts

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#261
post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have the same inclinations as you. I see there are various kinds of bias from different sources, and that you have to be able to think critically in order to maintain some sort of perspective. I also think that we need a bunch of different perspectives, so in that way it's good there's a lot of people talking. But we also live in a world that is more educated than ever, and a lot of those people who went to school…

How many of the people that think the virus isn’t real are critical thinkers though (meaning Occam’s razor, the scientific method, etc)? It’s not just education per se that we need, but education in critical thinking, and also history.

What critical thinking is involved in believing the virus is real? Apart from those who made some independent study I would say there is little critical thinking at all... Just faith in the institution of government and press.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you explain the Internet Research Agency then? What purpose do they serve? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Research_Agency

Stealing goverment money under the premise of "we will rule the world comrade, so please allocate 100 million dollars to us ASAP" and pocketing it to buy London properties, obviously. And of course, 50K out of 100M will be really allocated to buy some shitty FB ads to make screenshots and present it to higher-ups.

What a creative application of Occam's Razor!

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It may well be harmful, but your reasoning seems spurious. It would imply that "marijuana can be so harmful that is made illegal almost everywhere in the world".

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stealing goverment money under the premise of "we will rule the world comrade, so please allocate 100 million dollars to us ASAP" and pocketing it to buy London properties, obviously. And of course, 50K out of 100M will be really allocated to buy some shitty FB ads to make screenshots and present it to higher-ups.

What a creative application of Occam's Razor!

Being originally from Russia, I know how things work there.

I mean, government contractors aren't saints in every country, it's a well known fact, but in Russia they are on a whole different level.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#265

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…

It’s more than facebook.

It’s CAPITALISM.

People have to always preface any criticism of it by saying “there is nothing at all wrong with capitalism, but...”

But no, the actual ECONOMIC SYSTEM and the incentives and constraints it exerts on institutions and organizations is responsible for what is happening. It selects for the current types of organizations and outcomes by its very nature.

You see, both our news and our social networks are driven by a profit motive and face market competition. Thus they are forced to adapt to changing circumstancss in certain ways:

Act 1. Journalism was disrupted by the Internet, and survived by adopting the FOX News model of locking in an audience and being biased, showing one part of the story.

MSNBC explicitly did it, while CNN jumped the shark after the Malaysian Airlines flight, realizing it can lock in audience. One sided clickbait outrage articles are the norm. There is some attempt to have journalistic integrity and policy focus at Vox and NowThis, but then you also have MotherJones, OccupyDemocrats, DailyKos and more on the left. You have all kinds of independent podcasts like TYT network, Kyle Kulinski, David Pakman, Majority Report, etc. And similarly for the conservatives, libertarians, etc.

We are divided also because giant corporations like Sinclair Television bought up all the local stations and outlets, resulting in this:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_fHfgU8oMSo

No really, watch it. It’s black mirror level, and you can see the capitalism at work here. Top down control by a small group of people, disseminating to everyone under the banner of “free speech”.

Act 2. Social networks are in a race to the bottom for advertising dollars.

So they adapt by desiging algorithms to maximize your “engagement” and attention on their platform.

Capitalism leads to a tragedy of the unmanaged commons, where in this case the commons is human attention. There is a reason that you salivate at notifications like Pavlov’s dogs. You’ve been conditioned to look at that screen light up during dinner. It’s NOT just about a slot machine dynamic. It’s that - if Facebook doesn’t get your attention every so often, then LinkedIn or Twitter would.

The solution is changing the economic model for news and social media.

Yes I said it. But let me use less triggering words than capitalism and socialism.

We need more projects built on collaboration instead of competition.

Wikipedia instead of Britannica

Workd Wide Web instead of America Online

Open Source Software instead of closed source commercial software

Cryptocurrency instead of banks

Creative Commons instead of Copyright

Prizes for Open Source Drugs instead of Patent System and IP

And so on. Not only would it make the system cheaper, it would make it far more effective and less divisive. People would be able to build on each other’s work, without threats.

This is already how peer reviewed science has worked, and for all its flaws it has produced tremendous progress. Scientists are careful not to overstate things. Titles are “boring” and descriptive rather than sensational.

Compare that to the “free speech” where money - and yes, audience size - determines which ideas get pushed in one direction. Clay Shirky spoke about this 15 years ago:

https://www.ted.com/talks/clay_shirky_institutions_vs_collab...

So how would it work?

There would be a wiki-like site for news. People around the world would upload their own videos and raw media.

Then each news story would be edited and re-edited by mutually distrusting parties, checks and balances, similar to Wikipedia’s talk page.

The final result would be published only after a delay, when most parties have had a chance to challenge all the claims they needed, with well sourced claims of their own (each claim would have its own page).

That way, the world can make up its own mind by using the collaboration of the crowd, on issues like what’s happening in Saudi/Yemen, with China and Uyghurs or whether Assad gassed his own people after winning with conventional weapons. As well as on issues of religion, science, health policy, and so on.

We are building something like this as a reference implementation. The domain will be Rational.app

If you want to be involved you can email me at “greg” at the domain qbix.com. I am happy to welcome people on the project who know Javascript or PHP and who believe something like this is needed. This would be an open source project.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#267

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…

But Facebook is affecting Germany, the Netherlands and here in Sweden where I live. Most of the voters for SD (Sverigedemokraterna) follow the same pattern as Trumpists in the US: regurgitating bullshit spread through Facebook (and to a lesser extent YouTube) which became a firehose of lies, impossible to keep up with to be disproven. People fall into that hole more often than I imagined and I'm glad that the education system here is decent enough to allow the majority of the population to see through this farce.

It still affects society, it still sows discord and I'm not sure how you are unaware of this if you are making such claims...

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#268
post #2

It's troubling to me that censorship is being set up as the narrative savior of a free society, when in fact just the opposite is true.

Yup, and it's interesting to ponder why this narrative gains ground. Especially if we take at face value the claims that undue influence has been exerted for the past few years to ruin free society.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Have you ever used heroin (don’t).. this is an unfair comparison for people who have struggled with a heroin addiction.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#270
post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You have to pay $200 and send an application to the Bureau of Tobacco and Firearms. It takes 8 months to a year; they will do a background investigation and send you an approval form if you pass. Then you can purchase the (used) machine gun. Fully automatic weapons are not currently manufactured in the U.S.

Florida, in particular, has banned machine guns like the AK-47 which is to say weapons that fire multiple bullets with one pull of the trigger.

Semi-autos are the dominant technology in firearms; when a bullet is fired, the energy released forces a fresh bullet into the chamber, ready to fire but you must pull the trigger again. This is known as "semi-automatic" and is legal everywhere, for now.

Post reply on HN