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

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#351

Post by giantg2 » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 4:27 PM UTC

wry_discontent wrote: post #298

viridian wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tend to agree actually, and would go a step further and suggest that citizenship should be a requirement to vote in any election, and that persons born in the US should not be granted citizenship without being able to pass the citizenship test. I'm less comfortable granting people a bid based on general knowledge and intelligence though, I think the uninterested citizenry is a far larger problem than the uneducated…

I agree uninterested citizenry is a bigger problem than uneducated, but what about a citizenship test (which is absolutely, without a doubt, going to be immediately used as a disenfranchisement tool by a particular political party) is going to get people interested? It seems like that'd fix absolutely nothing but create further class distinctions between people who are represented and people who aren't. In fact, I'd…

We can do it that way. You just end up with many of the same issues we see today being exacerbated further, like rule of law not being followed and a lack of understanding about the legal structure.

The point of citizenship distinction is part of organizing a democratic government and maintaining cohesion. It tests a person on the basic form and laws of the government and their allegiance to the tribe. The point here is that you have a group off like-minded people allowing other like-minded people into the group. This creates a cohesive group that agrees on basic principles and can function well. Think about trying to conduct a system architecture design meeting with the non-technical users weighing in through a democratic vote on each suggestion - are you excited to do your job in that scenario? Do you end up with lemmings following the best salesman without understanding what is going on? (Different opinions are fine as long as they are legitimate and don't violate the common principles)

Letting anyone in makes the knowledgeable people feel disenfranchised by mob rule, not to mention making the organization susceptible to subversion. There's anecdotal evidence (probably statistical evidence if we look around) to support that citizenship that is earned results in a population that is more involved (look at voter turnout in places that never before had free elections).

So while I agree that people in a given location should have say over their government, I also believe that in being a part of that democratic government they have the responsibility to learn the basics by which the government functions. This minimum requirement at least shows a good faith effort on the part of the individual to be a diligent member of society.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#352

Post by KittenInABox » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 4:28 PM UTC

viridian wrote: post #281

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,…

I tend to agree actually, and would go a step further and suggest that citizenship should be a requirement to vote in any election, and that persons born in the US should not be granted citizenship without being able to pass the citizenship test. I'm less comfortable granting people a bid based on general knowledge and intelligence though, I think the uninterested citizenry is a far larger problem than the uneducated…

My concern with gating for votes in America is that America specifically has a very long history of gating voting in order to disenfranchise minorities from voting. We cannot trust our institutions not to use any restrictions to vote in a racist way. Without this, I can easily imagine a world where our existing disenfranchisement of minorities makes them uniquely vulnerable to being unable to acquire the education necessary to pass to citizenship test- and that this vulnerability is taken advantage of to cut them out of democracy altogether.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#353

Post by pjc50 » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 4:28 PM UTC

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.

> If they've liked a lot of horrible stuff before, they'll get more horrible stuff,

This is the problem here. It's like gambling addictions: on the one hand the gambler seems to be doing things voluntarily, on the other hand an entire industry is trying to trick them into coming back.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#354

Post by pjc50 » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 4:30 PM UTC

CaptainZapp wrote: post #236

gjulianm wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Brexit? I certainly can't prove it, but I'd be willing to bet that it wouldn't have happened without Facebook. The thing is that it's the first time were you can really microtarget bigots, racists and xenophobes. And that's what makes it frightening. Especially when everybody nowadays has his own brand of reality. Note: Despite the fact that I think Brexit is a devastatingly bad idea I don't mean to imply that leave…

Sadly Brexit is a product of the "mainstream" rightwing media in the UK who've been lying about Europe for decades. Remember the UK media are explicitly political; Johnson was even employed as a journalist for a while on a higher salary than the one he gets as Prime Minister.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#355

Post by InitialLastName » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 4:31 PM UTC

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.

That you've made this point is part of the problem.

I'm judging that the virus is real and a problem based on having had it, knowing people who died from it, knowing other people who had severe symptoms, from knowing (via other acquaintances) what the hospitals in my area were like, and from seeing freezer trucks full of dead bodies in the streets. OTOH, I'm from an area that got crushed by the virus early.

I can't say for sure that if I were in an area that hadn't had much contact with the virus my "Critical thinking" hat wouldn't be saying, "wait, what if they're just telling us there's a virus outside to keep us locked up".

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#356

Post by jariel » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 4:32 PM UTC

stale2002 wrote: post #311

jariel wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"censorship is connected to regimes who killed (and continue to kill) way more people then all the terror attacks combined. " Every state and institution in the world 'censors. The BBC, ABC news, Fox News, the government, every corporation, Facebook, Twitter, Google. Every single one. Stop talking about this absolutist stuff - it's not helping the argument. You, as an individual, can stand outside your home and say q…

> if you don't like them, start your own institution This point works against you, and actually supports the free speech advocates. If you don't like facebook, and want to have a more censored platform, then leave and go make your own social media company. But this whole thread is not about that. People do not want facebook to be allowed to support as much free speech as it is currently doing. Why can't these pro cen…

? Facebook censors. Heavily.

My argument was the opposite - that if people want less censorship, because they don't agree with FB banning their version of 'hate speech' - then they can make their own website.

There are 0 common platforms that don't censor. They all do, all day long.

Do you realize how much content on there is not suitable for publication? Death threats, doxxing, harassment, using the n-word to refer to black people etc.

No civil platform is going to allow that - and most of them have a higher bar frankly.

The much more challenging question has to do with 'truthiness' - because if you make a post that says 'XYZ stole the election, here is the 'evidence' (and it's not evidence) and it gets 300 million views - the result being that 50% of a nation firmly believe the election was 'stolen' but by objective measures it clearly was not ... then you have a mass media problem.

The 'free speechers' might want to be inclined to allow that to pass, because there's nothing illegal about lying. But misinformation has material impact.

Issues of vaccination are a deep - we know that 'anti vaxxers' have had huge success on Social Media leading up to COVID, and now were are facing a public health emergency where we need probably 75% of the population to get the vaccine to reach 60% herd immunity or whatever - or the pandemic won't subside.

People spreading false fears and lies about vaccines - while probably totally within the scope of 'free speech' is going to create some very serious problems.

On the other side, Twitter has announced that 'deadnaming' a trans person will get you banned. Literally saying the name 'Ellen Page' (because it's now 'Elliot Page') is like hate speech. While I understand that 'deadnaming' is a very rude thing to do, I don't remotely think it's a form of 'hate speech'. The government of Quebec fined someone $30 000 for making a joke about a guy in a wheelchair. Again, really, really not nice, but should not be illegal, and probably should be allowed on Facebook or Twitter as well. That's why we have the 'unfollow' button.

If someone is threatening/doxxing/abusing Elliot Page a person in the wheelchair, probably greater steps need to be taken, but not otherwise.

All media is controlled. Always. Someone is always in charge, someone is controlling what information flows, and frankly it's usually biased, but most 'institutions' bend at least to the public good.

So you can say anything you want on your front lawn, and on your personal blog ... but once in the commons, different kinds of filtering will kick in.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#357

Post by pjc50 » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 4:33 PM UTC

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…

To me it seems like both of these are true? There is a lot wrong with the status quo, so people go looking outside that for solutions. They run into charlatans offering quick, easy, convenient, and disastrous solutions.

It's strong parallels to those people who've found a valid but isolated problem with the medical establishment then immediately jump off the deep end into completely untested nonsense from quacks which they've heard from Youtube. "Collodial silver" and all that.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#358

Post by ardy42 » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 4:34 PM UTC

matz1 wrote: post #334

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.

The problem is not everyone are the same. For example, regarding covid, for some people they think the risk is low, for some people they think the risk are high. Some think the lockdown are worth it, some think the lockdown are not worth it. Both are correct，it highly depends on your personal preference. This will always cause conflict. This is democracy, both side will fight and to convince other. Whoever gain the m…

> This is democracy, both side will fight and to convince other. Whoever gain the majority/power is the winner.

> Unless facebook taking sides, i don't think it harm democracy. Both side too can utilize facebook for their advantage.

The problem is, for the most part, there's harm to democracy if no compromise is ever reached, and the "fight" on every issue becomes constant and intractable.

For instance, the fight around the response to COVID has pretty thoroughly undermined the response to it. You have people refusing to wear masks for the most part to just to say "fuck you" to the other side.

This kind of over-the-top fractiousness is a clear propaganda win for authoritarianism. China, for instance, is pretty effectively using it (and their corresponding success) to reduce the appeal of democracy among its people.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#359

Post by pjc50 » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 4:34 PM UTC

nopriorarrests wrote: post #333

sonotathrowaway wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

30% is HUGE, and this is why I do not buy the idea that you can get such percentage of votes because of some evil state actor who posts ads on facebook, with independent press, TV, all being available and popular as well. If some party got 30% of votes in Germany, stop blaming facebook and 'state actors'. Germans are better then this, they are not zombies, and they have a lot of information sources to pick up news/op…

> Germans are better then this

If they're voting for the Nazis again, maybe they're not better than this.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#360

Post by glasss » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 4:34 PM UTC

amadeuspagel wrote: post #160

> The business model is to divert revenue that used to go to newspapers and publishers to themselves. And so by manipulating people in this specific way that they do, which is to keep them using their system and keep surveilling them so that they can target them with ads, they are, in the process, crushing newspapers and publishers, who no longer have any financing, particularly local newspapers and niche publication…

I tend to agree with you. Imagine if a restaurant complained that they are losing money because people are making their own food at home. I think it would be clear that said restaurant isn't providing enough value to compete at that point.

What would be more likely - that everyone cooking at home is a michelin star chef, or that the restaurant(s) losing money weren't very good to begin with?

Enough with the food analogy - respected and valuable journalists and news agencies are still thriving. Facebook is not eating AP or Reuters lunch, nor the Financial Times or other specialized organizations.