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

121–130 of 472 posts

Re: Facebook Incubated the Insurrection

#121

Post by _Microft »

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.

Results matter more than intent.

As a side note: as long as they (FB, YT, ...) can not moderate properly and automatically, they have not solved scale. They might have figured out making money but scale regarding social networks? - I do not grant them that achievement.

Re: Facebook Incubated the Insurrection

#122

Post by cal5k »

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.

> That’s why you can buy a set of knives on Amazon but not a 10 pack of Glocks.

No, it's because Amazon doesn't sell guns. There's also no reason to own 10 of the same firearm - it's not like you're setting your dinner table with handguns.

As for guns being "mostly used to kill people", that's just not true. My gun collection has only been used to kill paper targets and, occasionally, deer. Properly used they are no more risk to society than a kitchen knife, arguably less since there are more stabbings than shootings every year.

Banning Parler and banning guns both strike me as infantilizing and highly ineffective. Look at what all of the anti-gun rhetoric has done for gun sales in the US - the same thing will happen with alternative social media platforms.

Re: Facebook Incubated the Insurrection

#123

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Facebook Incubated the Insurrection

#124

Post by TheAdamAndChe »

Nextgrid wrote: post #118
shlant wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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").

Not necessarily. I only have a few friends, and a few months ago before the election, I made a post recommending they stock up on food, water, and emergency medications just in case. I don't have many friends and it was probably only seen by a handful of people, yet the post was removed.

It's hard to say exactly what they moderate or how.

Re: Facebook Incubated the Insurrection

#125

Post by smolder »

nip180 wrote: post #115
dcolkitt wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Just in case anyone is left wondering, RSU stands for restricted stock unit.

Re: Facebook Incubated the Insurrection

#126

Post by pjkundert »

x86_64Ubuntu wrote: post #43
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…

Parler, unlike Facebook, only existed to foment the kinds of rhetoric and ideologies that lead to the 6th.

Not to provide facts to counter your generalizations, but...

I was on Parler for several months, trawling it and other sources quite heavily for the last month or so, trying to keep abreast of ... events.

At no time did I see even a single post advocating violent overthrow of the government, white supremacy, etc. Apparently, neither did any of those planning the Capital attack, since they were not Parler members.

So, if you want to deplatform people based on their political leanings, I guess you can go ahead and do that. But, the "reasons" being used to shut down Parler don't seem to be founded in fact.

Re: Facebook Incubated the Insurrection

#127

Post by Fellshard »

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.

No one considers systematic consequences of rules and laws, these days. Everything is short-term pragmatic cynicism.

Re: Facebook Incubated the Insurrection

#129

Post by ttt0 »

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, Merriam-Webster dictionary changed the definition of "sexual preference" to justify the outrage against Amy Coney Barrett after the fact. You probably can't get any more Orwellian than this. I guess something about free markets and private companies though.

Re: Facebook Incubated the Insurrection

#130

Post by dahart »

mc32 wrote: post #51

I think Facebook should not have the power they have: to grant or deny speech as _they_ see fit, which may or may not align with the locales they operate in. They are a supranational entity without any local governance. So their policies are left up to them. That’s not good for democracies. They should not force their world view across the world. That said, this is sour grapes from the NYT. They want to pile on becau…

> their policies are left up to them. That’s not good for democracies.

I think many economists and many people from all political parties would argue the exact opposite, that companies having enough freedom to set their own policies (as long as they’re legal) is very much one feature of the United States that has been supporting democracy in the last century.

Why should a private company not be allowed to establish their own rules on their own platform? Does your opinion apply to all private companies?

Does Facebook have a history of limiting legal speech? There are many types of speech that are not legal and not protected as free speech by the constitution. Surely Facebook should be free to limit such speech on their own platform, so they don’t become liable for it? False statements of fact, incitement, commercial speech, fighting words, threats, obscenity, among many other types of speech, are not protected free speech in the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...

Post reply on HN