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

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#381

Post by specialist » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 5:13 PM UTC

dweekly wrote: post #340

What a bizarre set of beliefs and claims. 1. That Facebook is maliciously and mostly singlehandedly responsible for the death of the newspaper and journalism. Except newspaper readership has been on the decline since the 90's. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/06/01/circulation... - the article frames Facebook's grand plan as taking money from newspapers, but Facebook's revenues in 2019 were nearly twice wha…

1. Yes, the decline of print news predates social media. Most blamed popular media like radio and television. Treating social media as the next iteration of TV would strengthen most criticisms.

2. Gross inequity is axiomatically anti-democratic.

3. The sole flaw in Stoller's anti-monopolistic advice, eg break up the titans, is that half-measures are insufficient.

Critics are not advocating either pro-competition or pro-consumer policies.

a. Prohibit all conflicts of interest, self-dealing. "Chinese walls" between business units are insufficient.

b. Prohibit aggregators from competing with their clients.

c. Normalize the rule of law, allowing plantiffs to appeal to a fair and impartial judiciary to resolve dispute and grievances.

d. Regulatory oversight and enforcement, with real teeth. Impose mandatory punishments onerous enough to alarm activist investors.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#382

Post by specialist » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 5:16 PM UTC

glasss wrote: post #368

dweekly wrote: post #340

What a bizarre set of beliefs and claims. 1. That Facebook is maliciously and mostly singlehandedly responsible for the death of the newspaper and journalism. Except newspaper readership has been on the decline since the 90's. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/06/01/circulation... - the article frames Facebook's grand plan as taking money from newspapers, but Facebook's revenues in 2019 were nearly twice wha…

I generally believe Facebook and other social media platforms are bad. I can also absolutely recognize that most people complaining about them don't seem to articulate their reasoning well or in some cases at all. In the article, Matt claims >There's a lot more that you have to do than just break them up. But the answer is, it would improve things dramatically if they were broken up, and you don't have to imagine it.…

> ...forced to break off instagram and other companies, things may get worse.

Empathic agreement. If the outrage machines are left intact, all the baby Facebooks will be incentivized to accelerate their race to the bottom.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#383

Post by InitialLastName » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 5:19 PM UTC

giantg2 wrote: post #367

InitialLastName wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with this is that you find yourself in a position where you're adding educational access as a means to manipulate the voting base. Want to disenfranchise people (as an example) from rural areas in your state over the long run? Funnel education funding away from school buses and into schools that offer wide varieties of academic programs (that can only be offered in large schools). Before you say "that wou…

All you really to do to fix that is have the ammendment require the test study material (small book) be provided via mail upon request. Or some other means. If you have an ammendment that requires this, anyone targeted by manipulation can sue for their constitutional rights. Most of the past manipulations are attacks on older laws that were less specific and required judicial interpretation to determine applicability…

Getting the study material in the mail doesn't help if your education system isn't equipped to teach people how to read (much less study the government).

You might or might not have noticed, but the politically and economically disenfranchised are not well-known for their access to legal recourse.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#384

Post by DennisP » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 5:20 PM UTC

sonotathrowaway wrote: post #319

DennisP wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only way no background check is required is if you buy from an individual, not a dealer. The threshold to be considered a dealer is fairly low. If it's someone with a table, they're going to be a dealer. It's just that if an individual sells their personal firearm, they're not required to do a background check, and at gun shows you'll see a few people walking around with a rifle slung over their shoulder and a si…

How effective would you rate those federal requirements on fully automatic weapons? If a person wanted to illegally modify a semi-automatic weapon to create an illegal fully-automatic weapon, how feasible would that be?

Must weapons that were easy to convert have been pulled off the market. AR-15s used to be easy to convert by buying a little part called an auto sear, but now the auto sear is considered a machine gun by itself, so you have to go through the same hassle to buy that as a full machine gun. Owning this stuff illegally gets you a ten-year felony conviction.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#385

Post by zepto » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 5:29 PM UTC

gjulianm wrote: post #215

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…

> 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…

Exactly.

I live in California, and recently had a conversation with a family member in The Hague.

She was telling me about her frustrations with Anti-Maskers and Covid-deniers she has been arguing with locally.

Apparently these are not just US political issues.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#386

Post by specialist » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 5:31 PM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #377

dweekly wrote: post #340

What a bizarre set of beliefs and claims. 1. That Facebook is maliciously and mostly singlehandedly responsible for the death of the newspaper and journalism. Except newspaper readership has been on the decline since the 90's. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/06/01/circulation... - the article frames Facebook's grand plan as taking money from newspapers, but Facebook's revenues in 2019 were nearly twice wha…

> That Facebook is maliciously and mostly singlehandedly responsible for the death of the newspaper and journalism. The mistake here is in blaming Facebook in particular when it was really the internet in general. Ironically what really happened here is basically the opposite of the premise. You used to have local media monopolies, or at least sufficiently concentrated local media markets that the players were making…

> dramatically increased competition for ad space, ... lowered prices ... grew the market ... incumbents weren't making as much money ... increased competition.

My assumptions have long been that while total ad spending has been fairly stable, the business shifted to digital. In other words, FAANG did not grow the size of the ad market, merely captured it. Sadly, I can't quickly find any cites.

If I understand your points correctly, there are now more ads for same overall spend. Roughly speaking.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#387

Post by Shared404 » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 5:31 PM UTC

matz1 wrote: post #380

ardy42 wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 aro…

I think The fight is inevitable. Eventually winner will emerge, democracy doesn't care who the winners is and how it get there as long as both side still allowed to fight. Even to reach compromise, fight may still be necessary. >You have people refusing to wear masks for the most mart to just to say "fuck you" to the other side. Mask has real downside (for some people), you can't just dismissed that (not just to say…

> Mask has real downside (for some people),

Name one. -- Not including the rare medical condition where having anything touching your face is incredibly painful.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#388

Post by wool_gather » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 5:32 PM UTC

giantg2 wrote: post #351

wry_discontent wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You make good points, though I'm sympathetic to the parent's point too.

In the very layered federal system we have in the US, it might be possible for us to have it both ways. Non-U.S.-citizens could be given a vote in local/municipal/county matters, but still not for national representation. (And some states might want to try out different levels of statewide enfranchisement.)

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#389

Post by matz1 » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 5:33 PM UTC

Shared404 wrote: post #387

matz1 wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think The fight is inevitable. Eventually winner will emerge, democracy doesn't care who the winners is and how it get there as long as both side still allowed to fight. Even to reach compromise, fight may still be necessary. >You have people refusing to wear masks for the most mart to just to say "fuck you" to the other side. Mask has real downside (for some people), you can't just dismissed that (not just to say…

> Mask has real downside (for some people), Name one. -- Not including the rare medical condition where having anything touching your face is incredibly painful.

One. Wearing Mask can be uncomfortable, and it is real downside (at least for me)

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#390

Post by nopriorarrests » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 5:33 PM UTC

zepto wrote: post #385

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…

Exactly. I live in California, and recently had a conversation with a family member in The Hague. She was telling me about her frustrations with Anti-Maskers and Covid-deniers she has been arguing with locally. Apparently these are not just US political issues.

Honest question -- do you think that without Facebook there will be no tensions between anti-maskers and people who insist on wearing masks everywhere? Is FB really to blame here?