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

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#471

Post by Shared404 » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 2:29 AM UTC

matz1 wrote: post #463

Shared404 wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So you get to decide which are legitimate and which are not? No, but I get to have an opinion, which I stated. A doctor would be better suited to decide which is legitimate or not. The condition I was referring to was Trigeminal Neuralgia. If a doctor says that it's okay to not wear a mask because "it's uncomfortable", then okay. I somehow suspect you'll have difficulty with that. > Likewise, I can also says your d…

Sure, you have opinion, i have opinion. Medical reason is not the only reason for it to be legitimate. You too are selfish for forcing other people to wear mask. >Is avoiding some mild discomfort really a worthy risk/benefit trade off? Very much Yes

> Medical reason is not the only reason for it to be legitimate.

I agree. I could also understand not being able to afford a mask.

Somehow I suspect that's not the case.

> You too are selfish for forcing other people to wear mask.

Disagree. Is it really that selfish to say "Hey, please endure some temporary mild discomfort with no lasting affects, in order to protect others?"

> Very much Yes

I have no words for this. You are either the best troll I've seen in a while, or are -- imho -- a ridiculously childish fool who is both weak, and hardhearted.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#472

Post by humanrebar » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 2:41 AM UTC

makomk wrote: post #339

humanrebar wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why aren't they being criticised? Because newspapers have editorial boards, ombudsmen, and liability (in the form of libel) for what they print. Facebook has the conceit that it doesn't have any perspective, that it's just a carrier of speech of others. The concern is that Facebook (and YouTube and Twitter) already has preferences (such as for controversy over dry facts) and is developing more (curation through fac…

In the US - which tends to be the main country articles like this on efocus on - it is almost impossible for public figures such as politicians to sue newspapers for libel, and any suggestion of changing this is immediately met with sinilarly outraged articles about it being a danger to democracy. Also, the editorial boards are just as keen on pushing their preferred narratives regardless of the facts as the papers t…

Gawker certainly was held accountable. Facebook blames it's users if similar content is posted. But it also censors and suppresses content. I'm just saying it should pick a lane. Be a carrier or have editorial control.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#473

Post by matz1 » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 3:11 AM UTC

Shared404 wrote: post #471

matz1 wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, you have opinion, i have opinion. Medical reason is not the only reason for it to be legitimate. You too are selfish for forcing other people to wear mask. >Is avoiding some mild discomfort really a worthy risk/benefit trade off? Very much Yes

> Medical reason is not the only reason for it to be legitimate. I agree. I could also understand not being able to afford a mask. Somehow I suspect that's not the case. > You too are selfish for forcing other people to wear mask. Disagree. Is it really that selfish to say "Hey, please endure some temporary mild discomfort with no lasting affects, in order to protect others?" > Very much Yes I have no words for this.…

>Is it really that selfish to say "Hey, please endure some temporary mild discomfort with no lasting affects, in order to protect others?"

For some people, including me, its major discomfort and they never asked for protection.

You are trying to force your interest againts other people in interest, yes that is selfish too.

How is it a troll? It is true i find mask inconvenience and uncomfortable. Risk of seriously sick from covid ? very very low. Not sure what else to say.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#474

Post by matz1 » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 3:18 AM UTC

Shared404 wrote: post #470

matz1 wrote: post #462

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Likewise don't be suprised when other people can also simply dismissed your concern. No, the different is the risk of not wearing mask way way lower than drunk driving.

About 1.5 times as many people died of Covid in the last seven days than people who died due to drunk driving in 2016. Drunk driving may be more dangerous to the individual, but not all wearing masks appears to be doing much more damage. For context, the number of covid related deaths over the past week are equivalent to 5.47 times the number of people killed in 9/11. These numbers don't include those who survive but…

Covid related death is a highly inflated number, i mean it include people who die and happen to be tested positive for covid, not just die due to covid.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#475

Post by Shared404 » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 3:55 AM UTC

matz1 wrote: post #474

Shared404 wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

About 1.5 times as many people died of Covid in the last seven days than people who died due to drunk driving in 2016. Drunk driving may be more dangerous to the individual, but not all wearing masks appears to be doing much more damage. For context, the number of covid related deaths over the past week are equivalent to 5.47 times the number of people killed in 9/11. These numbers don't include those who survive but…

Covid related death is a highly inflated number, i mean it include people who die and happen to be tested positive for covid, not just die due to covid.

Okay. So, according to [0], about 6% of the covid related deaths have only covid as a cause.

According to [1], there have been 291,522 covid related deaths since Jan 21 of this year, and according to [2], there were 2,977 fatalities in 9/11.

All numbers are rounded to the nearest whole number. EDIT: Except for the 6% and final results, for obvious reasons.

291,522 * .06 = 17,491 deaths with no related comorbidity. This number happens to be still ~1.7 times the number of drunk driving related deaths in 2017.

Finally...

17,491 / 2,977 = 6 times the number of people who were killed by 9/11 with no comorbidities.

---

Now, lets do the math for this past week.

16,308 * .06 = 978.48 deaths with no comorbidities.

2,977 / 978 = 3 -- So last week was equivalent to one third of 9/11 for deaths with no comorbidities.

As deaths are expected to climb, we can expect to have at least the equivalent of 9/11 every three weeks for a while.

And none of this math includes those who were mostly fine, but happened to have a small condition that was lumped in, causing them to not be counted in the 6%.

[0] https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/514915-is-us-covid-19...

[1] https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#cases_totaldeaths

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_September_11...

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#476

Post by AnthonyMouse » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 4:29 AM UTC

giantg2 wrote: post #465

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That may be true, but the policy we were discussing (property tax funding education as an example of 'every policy being racist') affects large portions of both whites and minorities, and thus does not make it a racist. Affecting large portions of both whites and minorities hasn't generally prevented anything from being labeled racist, if they affect minorities differently than white people (as a whole, not a speci…

"...we're talking about avoiding things over their historical implementations even if other implementations are possible." Well that's not at all what has been discussed. If that's what you think this thread is about, then you are very off-topic. If we are truly doing that, then we need to avoid all institutions and policies since they all have some bigoted background, and there's no path forward because everyone can…

> If we are truly doing that, then we need to avoid all institutions and policies since they all have some bigoted background, and there's no path forward because everyone can just unsupportively call anything racist.

I believe this was my original point. Go back and read it again.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#477

Post by Shared404 » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 4:38 AM UTC

matz1 wrote: post #473

Shared404 wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Medical reason is not the only reason for it to be legitimate. I agree. I could also understand not being able to afford a mask. Somehow I suspect that's not the case. > You too are selfish for forcing other people to wear mask. Disagree. Is it really that selfish to say "Hey, please endure some temporary mild discomfort with no lasting affects, in order to protect others?" > Very much Yes I have no words for this.…

>Is it really that selfish to say "Hey, please endure some temporary mild discomfort with no lasting affects, in order to protect others?" For some people, including me, its major discomfort and they never asked for protection. You are trying to force your interest againts other people in interest, yes that is selfish too. How is it a troll? It is true i find mask inconvenience and uncomfortable. Risk of seriously si…

> You are trying to force your interest againts other people in interest, yes that is selfish too.

Actually, I'm in one of the age groups/health levels that is safest from covid. I'm trying to help protect my community, not myself.

> Risk of seriously sick from covid ? very very low.

See math above for my thoughts on this.

> How is it a troll?

That wasn't the only option I listed. This applies to "it's major discomfort" as well.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#478

Post by crakhamster01 » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 7:06 AM 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…

It's really interesting that people still bring up Cambridge Analytica as a driving force in elections both abroad and domestic. Earlier this year, the UK's ICO concluded after a 3 year long investigation that Cambridge Analytica had no impact on the Brexit vote, and really was no different than your run of the mill marketing agency (just with better PR spin)[1].

But no one has picked up/amplified that story. After the 2016 elections, NYT/WSJ/The Atlantic/etc. ran article after article pinning the outcomes of the US and UK elections on Facebook, despite having no evidence of this outside of testimonies from some former CA employees. Anyone with a background in adtech knew that these allegations were full of shit, but the narrative was too good to pass up.

Now, conclusive investigations have debunked these claims, but it's 4 years too late and the idea that FB/CA caused the problems of the past few years is ingrained in everyone's mind.

[1] https://www.politico.eu/article/no-evidence-that-cambridge-a...

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#479

Post by onethought » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 7:25 AM UTC

adnzzzzZ wrote: post #444

onethought wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem pretty fine with accepting the corrupt science to deliver your message over the internet it invented. You are right, we won’t agree, because you haven’t got a point. What you first replied to and where you’re at now are unrelated positions. This is a classic “bring them to your level and beat them with experience” situation. You’ve moved the goal posts to climate change now. I’m not taking up that fight. You…

>People are being (unknowingly) manipulated and the sheer quantity of misinformation is being mistaken for evidence of truth. This is something you said that I originally replied to. We don't agree on what constitutes truth, so we can't have a reasonable conversation, and we also can't fairly judge what is and isn't misinformation, because we don't agree on the basics. This is the point I'm making. I don't believe th…

I think there is always common ground. There are always agreeable facts. I think there are two divergent points being made here:

- Facts and truth how we agree on them and how and why they influence policy decisions.

- Politics: what is the best way to convince (or unconvinced) people of a particular policy and progress a particular agenda (usually party or individual based).

I think anytime you find yourself stating “I’ll never change my view” I’d recommend a moment of pause.

Putting climate change to one side. Flat earth, 5G causing coronavirus, Bill gates trying to mind control your kids are all easily proved factually incorrect. Facebook could easily limit the spread of the this stuff. Sure we can save the more controversial things for later when more than 94% consensus is reached (in the instance of climate change)

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#480

Post by tonyedgecombe » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 7:57 AM UTC

rjsw wrote: post #249

CaptainZapp wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Note: Despite the fact that I think Brexit is a devastatingly bad idea I don't mean to imply that leave voters are bigots or racists. All the bigots and racists did vote leave though.

There was a strong racist undertone to the campaign. In my family we used to joke about my kids grandparents being mildly racist. The leave campaign helped turn that up a notch.