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

321–330 of 520 posts

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#321

Post by sonotathrowaway »

blisterpeanuts wrote: post #270
sneak wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bulle…

How difficult is it for a person to modify a stem-automatic weapon to make an illegal fully-automatic?

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#322

Post by vorpalhex »

nillium wrote: post #312
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…

But that all requires an informed populace. The problem with Facebook (and others, of course) is that it warps all financial incentives for the publishers, while sapping revenue away from them. Now if you want any revenue at all, which is required for surviving, you need to have clickbaity headlines so you can get traffic to your page. And even that assumes that certain news can find an audience; local news especiall…

Or you can choose publishers that have solvent and sane business models and support them by paying.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#323

Post by whimsicalism »

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…

> facebook usage isn't "sowing discord" in Netherlands or, say, Germany, or other EU countries

I'll be honest, I have trouble believing you live in the EU if you're claiming something like this.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#324

Post by Dirlewanger »

egberts1 wrote: post #251

Corporate-based media doesn’t like competition. Perhaps we need more journalists and not National Enquirer-type ones. After all, who is really turning off the lights to this “Democracy dies in a darkness”?

>Perhaps we need more journalists and not National Enquirer-type ones.

I totally agree. But I think even now it's too little, too late. HN loved Glenn Greenwald, and then immediately turned against him overnight because he dared to say bad words about a Democratic presidential candidate.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#325

Post by sonotathrowaway »

nopriorarrests wrote: post #231
solaarphunk wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>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…

Are you under the impression that 30% of the vote is insignificant? What if I told you that Hitler never won more than 37% of the vote in free and fair elections?

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#326

Post by throw1234651234 »

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…

"The best and only way to defend and nurture it is education."

This is really the core of the issue. I was going to add "and allow for competitive market", but that's going to be derivative of a truly educated population regardless.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#328

Post by boston_clone »

darepublic wrote: post #261
geertj wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not an appeal to authority to tell you to trust in doctors that have been studying and fighting infectious diseases their whole life; for me, however, the fact that so many countries have independently developed their own testing methodologies; that certain quantitative elements of the virus - e.g. transmissibility, CFR - are relatively consistent, with outliers and anomalies having additional evidence to justify their uniqueness; and the unfortunate human toll of this is undeniable.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#329

Post by whimsicalism »

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 personally think that the hard non-inferential view we have on free speech is holding us back somewhat (and also is hardly true in a world with "intellectual property"), but you're wrong to act like "it's not speech, it's ranked newsfeeds" is some killer dodge that free speech advocates haven't considered.

> it’s not fine if a ranked newsfeed amplifies that message to millions of people because it’s engaging

So companies are now restricted in what messages they are allowed to amplify?

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#330

Post by blisterpeanuts »

wry_discontent wrote: post #297
blisterpeanuts wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Immigrants are required to possess a modicum of knowledge about the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the system of government, not to mention some level of command of the English language (my wife teaches citizenship courses to immigrants). I, myself, am a naturalized citizen, from Canada, and I had to swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, forbear allegiance to foreign powers etc. It's a ritual,…

Unpatriotic college grad here, I think you're missing the "most basic fact", that the government obviously doesn't work for you and me. What's the point of getting involved with all this political junk, spending my time on it, when they're all in it for themselves, for their donors? That's a real question that's totally legitimate for most people. They're busy, the issue isn't education, it's a totally corrupt system…

But the government is supposed to work for you and me, at least indirectly. Mind you, if you get stopped for speeding and you say to the cop "Do you realize I'm paying your salary?" he's going to find 10 things wrong with your vehicle that you didn't know existed (a cop friend told me this years ago). But getting back to the main point, it is our government and we can take it back. It takes hard work and dedicated involvement, though.

Years ago, a bunch of reform minded Boomers moved into a dying neighborhood in north Boston (a city known for its corruption over many decades). They were well educated, affluent, and politically active. They banded together, went to meetings, made their voices heard, and after a time, city politicos became more responsive to them. They showed how democracy can work, if one puts in the time.

Once you own some property and raise a family, you will probably find that you need to become involved in local government to get what you need from it, as have millions of others.

Post reply on HN