Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

facebook.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

731–740 of 1001 posts

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#731

Post by dragonwriter »

dionian wrote: post #556
technofiend wrote: post #241

I know Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Reddit and all the rest don't count as broadcast media but I feel like we got here in part because the 1987 elimination of FCC's fairness doctrine slowly allowed a shift in how we communicate with each other. We went from specious claims and conspiracy theories being the subject matter of newsletters to their public broadcast to millions via talk radio ~and Fox News~, thus allowin…

Fox (however detestable you may find it) was created as an alternative to the corporate media hegemony on thought, I fear you have it backwards.

> Fox (however detestable you may find it) was created as an alternative to the corporate media hegemony on thought

No, it wasn't. First, because it's part of the corporate media created by what was already a media megacorp, so at best it might participate in the corporate media hegemony on thought, not provide an alternative.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#733

Post by jonathanstrange »

sleepysysadmin wrote: post #622
jonathanstrange wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the effect is the opposite. First of all, they haven't been talking to each other in a constructive way on these platforms anyway, they merely exchange hateful messages. There is no dialogue between those sides on social media, because social media are generally not conducive to reasonable and rational discussion (with exceptions like HN, of course, where there is appropriate moderation). Second, pushing radicals…

>No, the effect is the opposite. First of all, they haven't been talking to each other in a constructive way on these platforms anyway, they merely exchange hateful messages. So nothing lost? >Second, pushing radicals out of mainstream platforms is a good thing because they will go to many different places, break up into smaller fractions, and therefore not be able to reach as many people at once. The thing about ban…

I'm also not in the US and the examples I gave were just examples. I also don't think that "the blame game" makes any sense. The effects of modern media are world-wide and don't have much to do with particular party divides or "left" and "right." Notice I spoke of radicals, regardless of political affiliation.

As I've said, in my opinion the increasing division is partly a result of the fact that radical minorities nowadays have platforms through which they can easily reach millions.[1] This leads to an amplification of radical opinions and makes them appear to be more acceptable, hence also more accepted by people who would otherwise not even consider them. This in turn has to do with in- and out-group behaviour and corresponding cognitive biases.

One way to counter-act the trend while still allowing free speech is to ensure that radical fringe groups do not have large amplifying platforms. They can still have free speech, just like they had in the 80s, but it should be made hard for them to reach out to millions. I agree that this is technically non-trivial, but many experiences have been made already and there are many methods like moderation, karma systems, IP banning, shadow-banning, banning by degrading service, limiting amplification/re-distribution of messages, identifying sockpuppet and bot accounts, and so on.

[1] There are other reasons, of course, that have nothing to do with social media.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#734

Post by paulnechifor »

zeroxfe wrote: post #598
technofiend wrote: post #241

I know Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Reddit and all the rest don't count as broadcast media but I feel like we got here in part because the 1987 elimination of FCC's fairness doctrine slowly allowed a shift in how we communicate with each other. We went from specious claims and conspiracy theories being the subject matter of newsletters to their public broadcast to millions via talk radio ~and Fox News~, thus allowin…

> It'll be interesting to see if whoever replaces Ajit Pai holds a different view on public intercourse over the airwaves. Really hoping you mean "public discourse" :-)

Humor aside, intercourse and discourse are synonyms.

Although, intercourse is often used as short for "sexual intercourse".

But you are pretty much asking for that joke (like when you still use "ejaculate" with the "blurt out" meaning).

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#735

Post by matthewrobertso »

Natanael_L wrote: post #707
pentae wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you actually watched Fox News lately? Right wingers are leaving it in droves because except for a few pundits (Tucker Carlson etc) They are too moderate. Most of the craziness is on social media these days and right wing news sites on the web

There's nothing moderate about them. They're just not sufficiently extreme for the taste of those audiences. They fell under scrutiny that some of their smaller competitors aren't facing, so they're trying to maintain plausible deniability, which means the crowd of extremists has to go elsewhere to get their rage fix.

Moderation and extreme-ness exist on a continuum. Being not sufficiently extreme is being too moderate by definition.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#736

Post by adolph »

rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote: post #645
starik36 wrote: post #536

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't be fair when you only blame Fox for fact-free content when the same fact-free content(just inverted) is peddled by all the other mass media outlets. They just cater to a different bubble.

> all the other mass media outlets All? C'mon. You can make the argument that MSNBC is a mirror of Fox News in terms of coddling its viewers, but if you're calling NPR or the New York Times "fact-free," you're only betraying your own ignorance of journalism standards. Investigating facts and reporting them clearly is a solved problem. There are people who go to universities to study how to do this well, then go to wo…

Investigating facts and reporting them clearly is a solved problem.

Do tell. What is a fact? Is it an assertion that is truthful? If something is not asserted is it still a fact? Is gravity a fact or an assertion without evidence? Was Ptolemy wrong or just complicated?

Who are these people who go to universities and study how to investigate facts and report them clearly? Are they the in journalism or normal schools? Are they philosophers? Are they physics majors?

How much of a fact is bound in the frame of reference or context in which it is asserted? Can two nominally opposed assertions both be true? Does that make them both facts? Can all facts be recorded someplace?

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#737

Post by ThrowawayR2 »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #352
JeffCyr wrote: post #284

This is a dangerous short term move. In the end it may create a division and popularize other social medias where this content and worse will still be available in an unmoderated space.

I don't think it's going to play out that way. The problem with Facebook and Twitter is that everybody is on Facebook and Twitter. Some alternative comes up (let's call it Foo) that lets Trump speak freely. How many Facebook people are going to move to Foo to hear Trump? (Remember that the value of a social network is proportional to the square of the number of people there, and nobody's on Foo yet.) Sure, some will…

The popular vote for the presidential election was 51% to 47%. There are more than enough disaffected conservatives to allow Foo to not just survive but even become a roaring success, particularly if boosted with endorsements from leaders in that party. To believe that deplatforming people "shuts down the recruitment pipeline" for a political movement with such broad popularity is wishful thinking.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#738

Post by lern_too_spel »

matthewrobertso wrote: post #699
rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote: post #645

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> all the other mass media outlets All? C'mon. You can make the argument that MSNBC is a mirror of Fox News in terms of coddling its viewers, but if you're calling NPR or the New York Times "fact-free," you're only betraying your own ignorance of journalism standards. Investigating facts and reporting them clearly is a solved problem. There are people who go to universities to study how to do this well, then go to wo…

Was the new york times factful in its reporting on iraq in 2003? And if they later investigated themselves and found that they published information that was not true, would that cancel the war pushed on us by the military industrial complex across all of our media and bring 500,000 dead Iraqis back to life?

The New York Times regularly issues corrections and itself reported on which sources turned out to be untruthful.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#739

Post by CivBase »

I don't know how to feel about this one.

Yes, what Trump said was highly inappropriate, was pretty obviously intended to agitate a bunch of angry protesters, and resulted in a violent and destructive riot. And when things finally boiled over, instead of condemning the rioters he only tried to walk them back to just before the breaking point. That is obviously unacceptable conduct for a president and I think Facebook has correctly assessed the situation when they say his posts' "effect -- and likely their intent -- would be to provoke further violence".

However... it's also important to note that assessment was made in hindsight. Facebook did not block his account or remove his posts until the riots had already run their course. I suspect that is because Trumps posts (at least the ones I've seen) never directly called for violence - even if that was his intent. What Trump said yesterday was not inconsistent with what he has been saying ever since he lost the election. In context yesterday was different, but that context was never considered until well after events had already unfolded.

So what's the precedent here? Would Trump's posts still be a block-able offense if the riots never happened? What if the context were different and he made the same posts on just another normal Wednesday? Does intent play into it? I believe Trump had bad intent here, but how do you prove that?

Ultimately, I have to ask all these questions because I don't trust Facebook. Their business model is based on establishing and re-enforcing echo chambers to maximize engagement and ad revenue. Those echo chambers have become factories for misinformation and social unrest. Facebook's response is to establish vague and inconsistent policies regarding appropriate content as they scramble to de-platform the echo chambers they consider to be problematic.

Praising Facebook here feels to me like praising BP for their efforts to clean up the 2010 oil spill. Except BP's oil spill and subsequent cleanup efforts didn't threaten to underpin democracy and plunge the nation into a prolonged period of violence.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#740

Post by djsumdog »

horsawlarway wrote: post #650
djsumdog wrote: post #549

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because you worked there doesn't mean you know everything that went on. How do you even explain the pipe burst that never happened and the counting that continued. Everything in your area might have been on the up and up, but things happened you may have not seen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keANzinHWUA Also keep in mind Georgia never did re-canvasing and when they did a re-count, they recounted the IMAGES o…

When one person you meet in a day is an asshole - you met an asshole. When every person you meet in a day is an asshole - you're the asshole. Right now - you're the asshole. Every party involved, from the courts, to the (republican) GA government, to the media, to the pollworkers, to me, is telling you this was audited to hell and back, but you don't give a shit. Instead you post a video that was actually discussed i…

You are assuming my faith. That's honestly shitty. I'm not an asshole, I'm tied of misinformation.

The courts are cowards. The 7th Circuit decided the case without testimony on merits, but claimed they had standing. The SCOTUS claimed there was no standing in the Texas case, and didn't hear the merits. They dismisses concerns from millions of people with three sentences.

I wrote an entire post on this the day before the madness broke out. If you want a different perspective I suggest you read it:

https://battlepenguin.com/philosophy/the-fracturing-of-the-h...

I've lived in three countries, I've lived in left cities (Seattle and Chicago) for over six years, yet I grew up in the deep Red South. I'm an independent. The last time I voted was in 2008 and I wrote in "Mike Gravel" (D-Alaska) for president.

I didn't vote in this election. I know I have biases, but I also really try hard to see all sides. I grew up next to republicans and I know many who are amazing people.

I am sick of the fractures and selective memory I'm seeing right now. I also wrote about this in 2017. I think I called everything I've seen over the past four years:

https://battlepenguin.com/politics/the-fallout-of-american-a...

Post reply on HN