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

341–350 of 520 posts

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#341

Post by ardy42 »

visarga wrote: post #280
lordnacho wrote: post #176

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…

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 antagonis…

>> But we also live in a world that is more educated than ever, and a lot of those people who went to school can't figure out why they should believe in the moon landings, or dinosaurs. How often you do come across a posting from a friend who thinks the virus isn't real? You sat in a room with people like this for over 10 years. Did you think they would someday be able to think for themselves? I had hoped for that.

>> I'm starting to think that education as the answer might just be a naive point of view, but I'm also not desirous of a world where we tell adults what they're supposed to think.

> 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.

I don't think the GP thinks the problem is a lack of "education and understanding," but rather the inadequacy of it.

You both are also right. There's also a problem of people "being left behind, feeling unheard of, destitute.... [and] breaking away from the official story and invent their own explanations," but a good chunk of them have, in their discontent, allied with some of the very same people who caused them to be left behind in the first place. And they've been cemented to that mainstream faction with a slop of lies, delusional conspiracy theories, and other disinformation.

If you were both wrong, I think the discontents would have allied into something like a new Nonpartisan League [1] to work as factions in both parties to change the polices to help the common man.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonpartisan_League

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#342

Post by missedthecue »

throw_m239339 wrote: post #12
CJefferson wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook isn't "Free Speech" in the traditional sense, it is a massive AI system designed to funnel people towards controversy and lies (because it turns out controversy and lies get the highest engagement).

Twitter is even worse because of the format. At least with facebook people can have their own private spaces with only the people they trully know. Twitter is a just a machine to get people outraged and pissed off and yell at each other. Yet I see very little pieces written against Twitter, probably because Twitter bought the media with the blue check system, creating an 'elite' class within Twitter.

This is a good point. Facebook has a lot of value in community groups where you can find all sorts of friendly people in your area with common interests in hobbies, sports, or what have you.

Twitter has none of this. Twitter rewards abrasive clapbacks, angry arguments, and rage tweeting.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#343

Post by randoramax »

another_sock wrote: post #336

Information used to be hard to reproduce and disseminate across geography. This is no longer the case, and now exploits in human psychology that weren't really feasible to exploit in the past are available. The "problem" isn't facebook or any social media company, it is with humans as a whole, and it isn't really a problem, just an evolutionary bottleneck. Selection pressures have changed and certain traits that used…

Those who fail and get poor reproduce faster than the riches and within a few generations you put salt on your fields... Your comment reminded me of the movie Idiocracy

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#344

Post by laurent92 »

Avicebron wrote: post #309
laurent92 wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, having studied a bunch of official figures that I « was surprised of », I found there were just blatant lies covered by a scientific stamp (actually someone succeeded to pass a paragraph from Mein Kampf into the same journals, after replacing « Jews » by « Men »). The « scientific evidence » we’re governed with is frequently grossly manipulated, and yet it routinely passes peer review, journal publication a…

And if Facebook reduces the friction to those attacks? Isn't it then back to being the problem? I think the friction was part of the design/major benefits of older forms of media

The friction of those media prevents people from criticizing blatantly false scientific studies which have made their way to television and into laws. For example the layman has been told women are paid 73 cents for a dollar for the same work, and people constantly vote to raise women’s salaries based on the assumption it is true, because TV said so. Yet programmers who use spaces instead of tabs are paid 20% more, showing that even the slimmest external variable can double one’s salary, not even talking about internal variables.

Having entire sewers of points of views pouring in Facebook is a then great scientific education that there is no one truth, which _some_ people believe a bit too much. And sewers are immensely better than downright falsehoods taught on TV at wide scale with a confident voice and a suit.

What’s next, do people believe Biden is president?

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#345

Post by OliverGilan »

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…

Do not conflate schooling with education

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#346

Post by pjc50 »

vorpalhex wrote: post #322
nillium wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The problem all the way up and down this situation is that it's not about what I alone choose, but about what my neighbouring voters choose.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#347

Post by another_sock »

randoramax wrote: post #343
another_sock wrote: post #336

Information used to be hard to reproduce and disseminate across geography. This is no longer the case, and now exploits in human psychology that weren't really feasible to exploit in the past are available. The "problem" isn't facebook or any social media company, it is with humans as a whole, and it isn't really a problem, just an evolutionary bottleneck. Selection pressures have changed and certain traits that used…

Those who fail and get poor reproduce faster than the riches and within a few generations you put salt on your fields... Your comment reminded me of the movie Idiocracy

The elite need lots of slaves to work the fields and if you can keep them spending all their free time worried and emotionally exhausted about the news item du jour you never need to even whip them, they won't have any energy to cause you problems.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#348

Post by nickthemagicman »

laurent92 wrote: post #303
visarga wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 antagonis…

Honestly, having studied a bunch of official figures that I « was surprised of », I found there were just blatant lies covered by a scientific stamp (actually someone succeeded to pass a paragraph from Mein Kampf into the same journals, after replacing « Jews » by « Men »). The « scientific evidence » we’re governed with is frequently grossly manipulated, and yet it routinely passes peer review, journal publication a…

Why can't we have both problems!

I think you're completely right.

Science is not cut and dry or black and white.

Highly qualified experts disagree ALL THE TIME and the scientific industry is very competetive.

Look at Copernicus or Galileo or Barry Marshall or Semmelweis. These scientists bucked all mainstream scientific beliefs even after almost roundly being ostrasized and ended up being correct in the long run.

Many science experiments are measured terms of varying levels of statistical significance not in terms of correct/incorrect.

You can tell someone who is not trained in science when they claim you should 'trust science' or 'just believe in science'.

Science changes constantly and is an ongoing process to discover truth not a static set of true facts.

Science is as open to interpretations, best guesses, and political agendas and all kinds of human frailtys as any other industry.

But ignorant people think because an 'expert' says something is true it has to be true.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#349

Post by aethertron »

visarga wrote: post #294
dwiel wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

A compelling analogy. We need tools to monitor what they put into our feeds.

I like the food analogy, let's extend it.

We have ingredients lists on packaged processed food, but we have more than that: the ability to buy ingredients, learn recipes, make recipes, and cook.

We should have the ability to put what we choose (and omit what we don't) in our feeds.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#350

Post by s1artibartfast »

visarga wrote: post #282
gjulianm wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 unknow…

The best thing for the people would be to re-assert control over what we see and how. That means a new level of control over the interface, filters and ranking of our feeds and search results. Of course that would be the worst thing for Google, FB and Twitter (and their advertising clients) because they desire our attention more than anything.

I think control and availability is the key. People have lost a lot of control over what they say, but how much they see it. The average US adult in 2020 spends 8+ hours consuming TV and web media.

Like a sugar addition, we evolved in an environment where information could mean the difference between life and death, so we are hardwired to seek it out.

It takes a huge amount of self control to turn off the screens, but it is the best, and possibly only path forward.

Post reply on HN