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

Facebook Incubated the Insurrection

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 472 posts

Re: Facebook Incubated the Insurrection

#111

Post by newbie578 »

hoka-one-one wrote: post #2

Terrible. The storming of the capitol was probably the most frightening single event in American history in recent times. I just got off the phone with my friend who lives in China. He was in tears. He didn't understand how someone could have such disregard for the value of human life and democracy to walk inside the capitol building in DC. It's completely against the law. For those in the dark, the event caused seri…

I have to believe this was written sarcastically, otherwise I cannot believe someone can be this obtuse, especially introducing China to the conversation...

Re: Facebook Incubated the Insurrection

#112

Post by jimmydorry »

andrewzah wrote: post #105
leetcrew wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That seems like a pretty significant determinant when considering which site had a more direct connection to the events that transpired. does it really? "tries but fails to moderate extremism at massive scale" doesn't seem better than "makes no effort to moderate at much smaller scale". I guess the first leaves some potential for improvement in the future, but I don't expect a whole lot from facebook.

Intent does matter. Why don't you try moderating posts at the scale facebook receives them, and we can compare the results. edit: I am not advocating for or against facebook being so large. What I am saying is there is a clear distinction between facebook and e.g. parler in terms of moderation.

As we saw with Parler, your fledgling site can get deplatformed by the few key players in the cloud / app distribution / and service providers.

"Just make it" is no longer as convincing a non-sequitor as it used to be.

Re: Facebook Incubated the Insurrection

#113

Post by leetcrew »

andrewzah wrote: post #105
leetcrew wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That seems like a pretty significant determinant when considering which site had a more direct connection to the events that transpired. does it really? "tries but fails to moderate extremism at massive scale" doesn't seem better than "makes no effort to moderate at much smaller scale". I guess the first leaves some potential for improvement in the future, but I don't expect a whole lot from facebook.

Intent does matter. Why don't you try moderating posts at the scale facebook receives them, and we can compare the results. edit: I am not advocating for or against facebook being so large. What I am saying is there is a clear distinction between facebook and e.g. parler in terms of moderation.

why are we starting with the assumption that anyone needs to receive and moderate posts at the scale facebook does?

Re: Facebook Incubated the Insurrection

#114

Post by thoughtstheseus »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #82
ashtonkem wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One key takeaway from 1/6 is that a sizable chunk of the mob had no idea that they were doing anything wrong, and are surprised to find themselves in handcuffs after the fact. At least most historical revolutionaries had the self awareness to understand that trying to overthrow the state is super illegal , and maybe a bit of clandestine-ness is in their own best interest.

> a sizable chunk of the mob had no idea that they were doing anything wrong Has anyone dug into this? What were the actual stories that caused that suspension of critical thinking? (Serious answers, please.)

As a group they more often value personal and property rights above government institutions. A more common view in rural areas where you can be quite far from community/govt. services. After seeing months of property rights violations by large groups of people doing the same/similar in D.C. seems reasonable. It’s simple trespassing on govt. property. If someone does something malicious there should be repercussions for them but nearly everyone just trespassed.

Re: Facebook Incubated the Insurrection

#115

Post by nip180 »

dcolkitt wrote: post #86
mrweasel wrote: post #14

So is Google going to throw them out of the Play store? What's the argument for banning one social media and not another. Where do you draw the line that manages to keep Facebooks app available, while still being able to defend the removal of Parler. I know many will think I'm defending Parler, I'm not. I just don't see why Facebook is continuously given a free pass for all the horrible stuff on their platform. Is it…

There's a lot of rationales you can give, but the real answer is that banning Facebook would cause Google to miss their quarterly earnings. Many people are willing to take a stand for their beliefs, many fewer are willing to nuke their RSUs.

Nuking your RSUs will also make an enemy of every other person in your company with RSUs. You might not be fired, but you’ll likely lose most of your social capital at the company.

Re: Facebook Incubated the Insurrection

#117

Post by o_1 »

IgorPartola wrote: post #78
nhumrich wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

real people like parlor.

Knives can be used to kill people. But a lot more knives are used in cooking. So we see knives as tools that are relatively rarely used to do bad things and mostly used for good things. Guns are mostly used to kill people. So we see them as tools only useful for that purpose. That’s why you can buy a set of knives on Amazon but not a 10 pack of Glocks. Facebook is seen closer to knives. Parler was mostly guns.

this is literally the worst parallel I've ever heard. guns are deterant against serious bodily harm. You've obviously never been in a situation when someone else was threatening your life. A better assumption is maybe Parler was a deterant from suppression. I love how parler criticism existed in 24hrs after "trump" ban. I was on the platform for months non of this hainiss violence or racism was ever in my feed.

Re: Facebook Incubated the Insurrection

#118

Post by Nextgrid »

shlant wrote: post #60
mrweasel wrote: post #14

So is Google going to throw them out of the Play store? What's the argument for banning one social media and not another. Where do you draw the line that manages to keep Facebooks app available, while still being able to defend the removal of Parler. I know many will think I'm defending Parler, I'm not. I just don't see why Facebook is continuously given a free pass for all the horrible stuff on their platform. Is it…

I don't deny there is probably some favoritism going on, but is Facebooks willingness to moderate their content not at least part of the reason? Parler was completely hands off when it came to any sort of moderation of the content its users were posting (by design) which allowed for threats of violence to go unchecked and flourish within the platform. That seems like a pretty significant determinant when considering…

> Facebooks willingness to moderate their content

Facebook moderates content only when it draws too much attention, but either way Facebook profits off said content as their algorithms promote it (because said content generates "engagement").

Re: Facebook Incubated the Insurrection

#119

Post by greesil »

rangoon626 wrote: post #97
ttt0 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Get your own server in a colo that's owned by someone friendly to your political viewpoint. ...until someone up in the food chain will either shut that down too or force them to disassociate with you. https://www.theverge.com/2020/10/25/21532883/paypal-cuts-tie... > Keep some spares in a closet for when the feds inevitably come when someone uses your unmoderated platform to plan crimes. Section 230.

I think most people don’t understand that the regime will define and redefine what hate speech is, over time. It’s those icky conservatives now, but the same mechanism will be used against more people tomorrow, as needed.

Well, this debate has never happened before.

Re: Facebook Incubated the Insurrection

#120

Post by wombatmobile »

andrewzah wrote: post #105
leetcrew wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That seems like a pretty significant determinant when considering which site had a more direct connection to the events that transpired. does it really? "tries but fails to moderate extremism at massive scale" doesn't seem better than "makes no effort to moderate at much smaller scale". I guess the first leaves some potential for improvement in the future, but I don't expect a whole lot from facebook.

Intent does matter. Why don't you try moderating posts at the scale facebook receives them, and we can compare the results. edit: I am not advocating for or against facebook being so large. What I am saying is there is a clear distinction between facebook and e.g. parler in terms of moderation.

Have you calculated how many more moderators could be deployed full time out of facebook's $16 billion profit?

At $20 per hour, approximately 400,000.

Post reply on HN