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

191–200 of 472 posts

Re: Facebook Incubated the Insurrection

#191

Post by onetimemanytime »

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 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.

Intent matters. Did FB purposefully tailored their site's pitch for such characters? Did they have enough mods to delete stuff or algos in place? I suppose in groups barely anyone would report posts as not appropriate.

Re: Facebook Incubated the Insurrection

#192

Post by mgbmtl »

throwawayosiu1 wrote: post #92

On a side-note, I hate how Facebook sticks to their real name policy and does not allow for the creation of multiple accounts (I'd want one for my startup / work etc. and another for my personal use case for my friends / family etc.). That said, all the mainstream social media apps - Facebook and Twitter had a hand and if Parler was de-platformed with that reason, then they should be as well. I mean, if a 700B and a…

Isn't the Real Name policy a bit of a joke? I have a few test/fake/dev accounts, never had any issues (but for new accounts, need to associate them with a mobile number, but only for the initial signup).

That said, I think the structure of Facebook intentionally makes it difficult to moderate. Reddit, for example, has public groups, group mods, etc. Far from perfect, but Facebook could definitely do more validation before promoting groups.

Re: Facebook Incubated the Insurrection

#193

Post by asxd »

bcrosby95 wrote: post #182
rootusrootus wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Users could post stuff that would get them booted off twitter, but that was legal speech I'm curious what kind of posts would definitely fall into this distinction. I see plenty of really distasteful, vile comments show up on Twitter. And AFAIK inciting violence is illegal. So the area between those seems to me like it would be pretty narrow. My impression of Parler is more that they only deleted illegal speech of…

> And AFAIK inciting violence is illegal. Sure, but in the USA it's actually really hard to incite violence in the eyes of the law. For example, when it comes to USA laws, Trump almost definitely did not incite violence. But lots of people would disagree with the statement that he didn't incite violence.

Sure, it's up to interpretation, but I think we're fooling ourselves a bit to say he didn't incite violence. People raided the capitol on his behalf. His rhetoric must have had something to do with that.

Re: Facebook Incubated the Insurrection

#194

Post by dbetteridge »

btbuildem wrote: post #159

So.. suppose you're Superman, and you can just burn every last Facebook data centre to the ground. Would removing FB from the internet help, or is it too late at this point?

I think FB could work if there was a hard limit on the size of groups/spread of ideas.

Say a group can have only 50 members

Anything a person shares can only be seen by X people and no re-sharing allowed.

Basically a return to old style forums, niche audience etc.

Re: Facebook Incubated the Insurrection

#195

Post by phaedrus »

FreakyT wrote: post #71
owlmirror wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really don't know about this. There are certainly fringe groups active on Facebook but at least in my immediate circle it's mostly a tool to connect families, friends and communities. I really don't see it as a forum for ideas or activism, unlike Twitter or reddit. but maybe that's just the bubble I'm in.

> I really don't see it as a forum for ideas or activism, unlike Twitter or reddit. but maybe that's just the bubble I'm in. Exactly -- and that's the real danger of algorithmic engagement-driven content. For you, it's picking harmless content because that's what you engage with. But once you start engaging with, say, some crazy cult, Facebook's algo will pick up on that, and start prioritizing content from the crazy…

If you're unlucky enough to have lots of crazy Trump cultist family members, or live in the conservative South, or both, Facebook will show you a never-ending stream of this content as well. It's like having to walk past an overflowing toilet on the way to the cafeteria, every time I go to check my Facebook.

Re: Facebook Incubated the Insurrection

#196

Post by ctrlp »

lr wrote: post #27
ForHackernews wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook is big, wealthy and mainstream. Parler was small, poor and fringe. Same reason tech firms are happy to "stand up" for democracy in small developing nations but won't say boo to China. If you're looking to big business for some consistent moral principle, you're looking in the wrong place.

Facebook, allegedly, has an "army" of moderators. Parler, on the other hand, relied on voluntary "flagging", and they admitted (quoted in some other article from today), that they had a backlog of some 26,000 posts to review. So, while this stuff looks arbitrary on the surface, I guess we will just have to see what comes out in discovery in these lawsuits and what happens with judge and jury.

Parler has allegedly had hundreds of paid moderators for months. They also allegedly cleared their backlog over the weekend in a foolish belief they could be on the right side of AWS politics.

Re: Facebook Incubated the Insurrection

#197

Post by zug_zug »

I think the title says one thing but the body doesn't really provide enough evidence to support the title (aka linkbait).

The body shows some people got a bunch of likes for saying crazy things on Facebook. I assume that's true of twitter or all social media, and true for all conspiracy theories. I'd be curious what exactly the proposal is from this post.

Re: Facebook Incubated the Insurrection

#198

Post by [deleted] »

mlang23 wrote: post #139
o_1 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Indeed, I was never in a situation where someone threatened my life. I know why. I life in a first world country. With reasonable people, and proper gun control laws. The gun laws are what make me consider the USA not a safe place.

[deleted]

Re: Facebook Incubated the Insurrection

#199

Post by ransom1538 »

earthscienceman wrote: post #165
ransom1538 wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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" This is how it always turns out: Orwellian 'At the end of Animal Farm, the pigs start to walk on their hind legs. This is significant because the animals have gone from saying "Four legs good, two legs bad" to the chant "Four legs good, two legs BETTER." Napoleon begins carrying a whip, and soon all…

[flagged]

We need to ban posts with Orwellian in the text!! Because we are not Orwellian!! irony crystalized.

Re: Facebook Incubated the Insurrection

#200

Post by bcrosby95 »

asxd wrote: post #193
bcrosby95 wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And AFAIK inciting violence is illegal. Sure, but in the USA it's actually really hard to incite violence in the eyes of the law. For example, when it comes to USA laws, Trump almost definitely did not incite violence. But lots of people would disagree with the statement that he didn't incite violence.

Sure, it's up to interpretation, but I think we're fooling ourselves a bit to say he didn't incite violence. People raided the capitol on his behalf. His rhetoric must have had something to do with that.

I think morally he did. And he should be impeached for both that and his inaction in response to that.

But the statement was "inciting violence is illegal". Which involves the law. That's a different question.

Post reply on HN