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

261–270 of 472 posts

Re: Facebook Incubated the Insurrection

#261

Post by ttt0 »

nitrogen wrote: post #224
ttt0 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Do you have a link to a diff?

As usual, no one bothered to properly archive it and people took screenshots instead. So unfortunately, neither archive.today nor wayback machine has it and the last capture before that was in 2016. But even Snopes confirms it, if you don't want to take my word for it.

Re: Facebook Incubated the Insurrection

#262

Post by harimau777 »

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 know that I think it was right to kick out Parler, but it seems like there's a "if you lie down with dogs, then you get up with fleas" element to this. Parler targeted a toxic demographic and their brand became toxic.

Re: Facebook Incubated the Insurrection

#263

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

throwawayosiu1 wrote: post #36
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What's the argument for banning one social media and not another Google’s argument would be Facebook has shown good-faith efforts to respond to the problem, e.g. by freezing Trump. Parler didn’t or couldn’t. (Counterfactual: they weren’t given much time.) In reality, a greater fraction of Parler’s users are engaging in criminal activity. By virtue of market share. (I reckon the number of problem users is higher at…

Didn't they freeze Trump only after the entire backlash? and last I checked, Trump was not on Parler was he? Infact, that was the big issue - Trump not moving to Parler or Gab while calling out Twitter. It's funny because if he did do the move earlier, he'd have hurt twitter where it counts - their stock price. But I guess the attention on Twitter was just too much to ignore.

> and last I checked, Trump was not on Parler was he? Infact, that was the big issue - Trump not moving to Parler or Gab while calling out Twitter.

This is a legitimate criticism even for people on the right about Trump. He knew these Tech Giants were questionable about uneven censorship, he’s been complaining about it for years.

So why in the hell wasn’t he posting to gab, parlor, bitchute, streamable, all the “alternatives” first, then the tech giants on automatically on delay? Someone could have EASILY set that up for him.

The media for the past four years set around salivating for the next Trump tweet. They would’ve had to say Parler, Gab, whatever. They would’ve had to show the logos. They would’ve had to make it more about the words in the platform.

You could be a diehard Trump supporter, and realize that this is largely his fault for not being smart about how his message got out. I really think he thought he was above censorship, they wouldn’t DARE... I guess he was right, just until until he lost power.

Re: Facebook Incubated the Insurrection

#264

Post by fsociety »

pjkundert wrote: post #155
jf22 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Instead of relying on first hand experience, have you considered googling for screen shots of Parler posts advocating for the violent overthrow of government and white supremacy? They exist and are easy to find.

Of course they are. They are easy to find for every platform.

It’s doublespeak to say “I saw no calls for violence when I was on platform” and then to say “of course there was calls for violence on the platform, they are on every platform”.

Which is it? Facebook optimizes for engagement.. Parler optimizes for free speech.

Why did Parler optimize for free speech? Is it because some of the members were being banned from the other platforms for extremism?

Did Parler gain network effect because of those certain members moving over to the platform?

You have to think deeper about the whys here.

Re: Facebook Incubated the Insurrection

#265

Post by Aunche »

fsociety wrote: post #246
ctrlp wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's false. Please don't spread false information, whatever your politics. Parler had very similar terms of service to other content companies prohibiting illegal, violent, or copyrighted content. They also paid a team of content moderators to adjudicate flagged posts. They worked happily with their reps at Apple, Google, and AWS right up until the Friday Night Massacre. They were a small company experiencing massi…

Links for reference? When the CEO spoke with Kara he said that they have groups of five random individuals on platform moderating each decision. That’s a filter bubble style of moderation and poor compared to Facebook/Twitter’s efforts for moderation. The CEO also made it sound like they ignore context and instead only respond to direct threats of violence, allowing vague remarks on platform.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parler#Moderation

> In January 2021, the Wall Street Journal reported that Parler had increased its moderation team to 600 people, and began paying them. They also had begun hiring full-time employees to moderate the service.

It may be that Parler did too little too late, but I find it concerning that most mainstream news outlets are failing to report this.

Re: Facebook Incubated the Insurrection

#266

Post by nip180 »

sneak wrote: post #253
nip180 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What do you mean by "nuking"?

Taking an action that will directly result in a decrease in stock value.

Re: Facebook Incubated the Insurrection

#267

Post by AlexandrB »

babygoat wrote: post #188
zests wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which event are we talking about? The ones that agree with my sensibilities are protests. The others are riots.

Are you being facetious, or are you really saying the definition of a riot or insurrection change according to your preferences?

I think they are comparing Jan 6 with the summer's BLM protests.

I don't have a fully coherent argument why the two are different, but intuitively I think they are very different. For example, one was a response to unchecked executive power (killings by police), while the other was incited by unchecked executive power (the president).

Re: Facebook Incubated the Insurrection

#268

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

ashtonkem wrote: post #99
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.)

Not being sarcastic, but a lot of them are honest-to-god cultists; their connection with concrete reality is tenuous at best. They think that Q is real, and that Trump had secret information about vague evilness being done by Congress (eating babies or similar) that was going to be revealed when they got into the Capitol. Then they were going to arrest them all and execute them as punishment for their alleged crimes.…

This post like this that remind me the people seriously believe there aren’t just the same number of crazies on the right and left. That “your side“ has all of the “reasonable people” and is “morally right”, what an amazing coincidence.

You only want one side to have to “own“ their crazies. That isn’t how it works. Neither side should be thought of or represented by their “crazies”, that isn’t anywhere near good faith.

Re: Facebook Incubated the Insurrection

#269

Post by AlexandrB »

rangoon626 wrote: post #236
AlexandrB wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is revisionism. There have always been cranks in the Republican faithful, but never have they been as detached from reality in as large of numbers as with Q Anon. Consider all the stories of people "losing" their relatives to increasingly deranged Q-adjacent conspiracy nonsense. These aren't just the cranks that were always there, they're fresh converts.

They lost their relatives due to a declining living standard in the US. Qanon is a thing not because of Facebook, but because it gave people hope that the horrors and apparent wrongness of the globalism that has wiped out their communities, would be addressed. Things like Qanon and BLM are a result of that declining living standard. No one would care if the country hadn’t been sold out. It absolutely is the slow deat…

I agree. But the idea of declining living standards as a causal factor is not mentioned, nor even hinted at, in your original comment.

Re: Facebook Incubated the Insurrection

#270

Post by ctrlp »

rootusrootus wrote: post #156
lesstenseflow wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a lot of space between "what violates the law" (or explicit ios/play store Terms of Use for that matter) and "what will get you kicked off twitter" and I believe Parler operated in that space. Users could post stuff that would get them booted off twitter, but that was legal speech. This was fine with iOS & play store & AWS until they all simultaneously and independently (wink wink) realized it violated their…

> 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…

Parler claimed they were intentionally not going to get into the game of defining "hate speech". We see how hard that is in the context of Twitter and Facebook. There are laws on the books in some countries criminalizing as "hate speech" the voicing of opinions that many reasonable people would consider simple truth, political or moral beliefs, mild skepticism of power, or disputing of facts/interpretations. In the US there is no definition of "hate speech" that is currently consistent with existing law. We already have laws to criminalize certain speech acts and a body of law to support them. If someone knows what "hate speech" is and can define it in a policy that isn't used to silence political opinion, then they are in rarefied company. Many people's opinions are noxious to others, of course. But who gets to decide which are which? Apple? Amazon? Twitter? Facebook? The 2020 US Congress? The 2022 Congress? The President of Russia? The CCP? The loudest keyboard activists and their online mobs? Those who are celebrating this aren't thinking it through, or have other agendas.
Post reply on HN