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

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#271

Post by dunnevens » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 2:48 PM UTC

skewart wrote: post #167

CPLX wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a small number That's not correct. There were staggering numbers of them. In 1900 there were 15 English language daily newspapers in New York City alone. The problem with Facebook is monopolization. It's different when you have a ton of places that share information, and some of them are biased in one direction or another, versus when you have just one, and that one actively works to prevent other options from emer…

There are far more news sources available today than in the 20th century. Not only can I read local newspapers and magazines from all over the world, which wasn’t easy to do before the internet, but also there are tons of new digital-only publications and millions of blogs. In the 1990s in the US, before the internet took off, most people had access to one local paper (two in some cases), maybe an a few local magazin…

There's both more and less news. Yes, I can now access all sorts of news worldwide which would have been difficult or inaccessible in the print era. But the newspapers in smaller markets are either disappearing or have greatly reduced capacity. It's much easier for me, in Kansas, to read about the current political struggles surrounding Brexit than it is about whatever my rural county is doing. There are rumors of corruption here. Certain decisions which are completely idiotic. But there's no one investigating. No newspaper or television willing to cover it in any detail. It's a black hole.

My situation isn't unique. This is the reality across much of the US. Not just the rural areas. There are many cities where cutbacks mean the local press doesn't cover the cops or the city council as much as they did in past decades.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#272

Post by twox2 » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 2:51 PM UTC

solaarphunk wrote: post #222

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…

Russia, and many populist/extremist political campaigns, literally manipulate European elections by employing content farms to push out controversial content. Internet Research Agency, Cambridge Analytica, etc. How do you think populist leaders gain such a large voice so quickly in those EU countries? You're kidding yourself, if you don't think the same tactics are being deployed in Europe, and amplified via platform…

Platforms like FB are just a tool for abuse in your example. If not for FB it would just take place on different platforms or through different channels. This is the price we pay for an interconnected world, killing Facebook will not save "democracy" - whatever that is.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#273

Post by blisterpeanuts » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 2:52 PM UTC

detaro wrote: post #180

blisterpeanuts wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think I did clearly say that; what's unclear? The federal assault ban covers fully automatic weapons, not semi-automatic. Here's a pretty good explanation of the differences. https://www.politifact.com/article/2017/oct/02/difference-be...

From what I understand, you claim there is a clear legal category of "assault weapon" you base the definition on. So where is that defined? Your link only talks about fully- vs semi-automatic, the NFA linked from there doesn't use the term, ... Whereas past laws that used the term clearly considered it not to be fully-automatic only. E.g. the law that's commonly known as the "Federal Assault Weapons Ban" (1994-2008)…

You can read the exact definitions here, if you have the patience to wade through a military document. https://www.dia.mil/FOIA/FOIA-Electronic-Reading-Room/FOIA-R...

Certain military-grade rifles that are semi-auto but can also be made to fire fully auto are classified as assault weapons, officially and militarily speaking.

Civilian anti-gun activists just call anything "assault" that even looks kind of military, like a black AR-15 that might only fire .22 bullets, one at a time. By the way a .22 bullet might not stop a man unless it's a heart hit; this is why police (and bad guys) tend to use .45 or other larger caliber weapons. A .22 is quieter, less kick, cheaper ammo, and is good for killing rabbits.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#274

Post by adnzzzzZ » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 2:54 PM UTC

gjulianm wrote: post #253

adnzzzzZ wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

If reality is not so clear cut, then a constant exposure to lies would not help anyone to better understand it. Which is my point: it's not that people are now trusting an alternative source of information because they lied previously, it's that there's so much misinformation and lies that people don't even know what they can trust, and even basic facts get doubted. That is serious damage for democracy.

That's fine. Humanity has survived much bigger problems in the past, and I'm sure we'll be able to get by just fine now. And as an added note, as I personally have no appreciation for democracy, in my opinion anything that diminishes its power in people's minds is eminently desirable.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#275

Post by thebigspacefuck » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 3:02 PM UTC

neogodless wrote: post #206

eptcyka wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sharin…

I stopped using Messenger once they started with the ads. Signal is a great replacement. The chat heads on Android were cool but I don’t find I really miss them.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#276

Post by kritiko » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 3:02 PM UTC

solaarphunk wrote: post #243

nopriorarrests wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>How do you think populist leaders gain such a large voice so quickly in those EU countries? There are two options here. 1. People are not really happy with current status quo so they are looking to choose alternative leaders via elections, just as expected in democratic countries. 2. Some bad guys post bad stuff on Facebook and, like, 30% of german voters read it and march to election booth like zombies to vote the…

In case 2. you're being a little disingenuous by oversimplifying the issue. The issue is that when "bad guys post bad stuff", it gets amplified because its engaging, and can really distort people's reality and nudge their belief systems. Have you taken a look at Cambridge Analytica? This was their playbook. There's a reason those people were paid a lot of money, and received a ton of scrutiny. As for case 1. Yes, peo…

IRA was totally overblown in terms of its impact. See Thomas Rid's Active Measures.

Andrew Bosworth, former head of FB ads, has been pretty critical of Cambridge's claims as well: "In practical terms, Cambridge Analytica is a total non-event. They were snake oil salespeople. The tools they used didn’t work, and the scale they used them at wasn’t meaningful. Every claim they have made about themselves is garbage. Data of the kind they had isn’t that valuable to begin with and worse it degrades quickly, so much so as to be effectively useless in 12-18 months."

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#277

Post by ori_b » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 3:07 PM UTC

CPLX wrote: post #122

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…

> a small number That's not correct. There were staggering numbers of them. In 1900 there were 15 English language daily newspapers in New York City alone. The problem with Facebook is monopolization. It's different when you have a ton of places that share information, and some of them are biased in one direction or another, versus when you have just one, and that one actively works to prevent other options from emer…

How does that compare to the number of daily facebook posters, tweeters, tiktokers, bloggers, youtubers, internet tabloids, and other media sources accessible to a new yorker today?

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#278

Post by jcfrei » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 3:09 PM UTC

lordnacho wrote: post #176

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…

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…

You need more than just education. If people feel their standard of living is deteriorating due to no fault of their own then they become much more susceptible to disinformation. If they have to work 12 hours a day just to keep their home and feed their family then there's no room for critical thinking - you just believe whatever makes you feel better. Democracies have always struggled when the standard of living of the population has decreased - either in absolute terms or relative to their peers. And this is one of the main reasons in the US: The growing divergence in economic outlook for people living in the rich coastal cities versus the people in the "flyover states".

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#279

Post by dyeje » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 3:10 PM UTC

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…

Yes, there are problems in the United States but I do believe Facebook is accelerating the polarization significantly. We have widespread belief in voter fraud based on no hard evidence. This was simply not even conceivable 4 years ago. Just because there's a fire burning already doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye to those who pour gasoline on it.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#280

Post by visarga » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 3:11 PM UTC

lordnacho wrote: post #176

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…

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…

You think the problem is a lack of education or understanding? I don't think so, it's something else - being left behind, feeling unheard of, destitute, incapable of changing the situation no matter how you vote. Then people start breaking away from the official story and invent their own explanations, and why would they have solidarity with the mainstream society when it betrayed them? Better to vote in an antagonistic way and muddle the waters because this system is corrupt in their eyes.