Live data from Hacker News

Facebook Incubated the Insurrection

nytimes.com

341–350 of 472 posts

Re: Facebook Incubated the Insurrection

#341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect the real real answer is that Google would summon an enormous shitstorm of antitrust action down on their heads if they even thought about kicking their biggest domestic competitor in the ad space out of the app store.

Can Facebook violate any TOS and not get kicked off because of antitrust? They could justify it to a court, because "Facebook incubated the insurrection" or "Facebook broke our rules" not because "we don't like enabling our competitors".

For the purposes of making a decision like this, justifiability in court seems like a relatively remote worry. The shitstorm itself, I'm guessing, would be the more immediate concern. Few people in a position to make a decision like this would have neutral feelings about the prospect of a swarm of federal investigators giving them the white collar equivalent of a body cavity examination in order to suss out whether their intentions were pure.

Re: Facebook Incubated the Insurrection

#342
post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here are a couple: Facebook could have 100 times more violent content than parler, but it would be a much smaller percentage of content because Facebook is 1000000 times bigger. It's that simple really. Banning Parler is more efficient. Also, Parler went out and sold itself as somewhere this was allowed, protected and encouraged. Facebook didn't, quite the opposite in fact.

Going down this path, consider that Facebook caused genocide, the active killing of a population. Parler caused 1 night of rioting. How is that for percentages of content being objectionable?

Well, neither "caused" those events per see, they were just places where people gathered and talked about doing them and riled each other up.

That's one of my frustrations with this: these issues should be dealt with by police and governments and society as a whole. The total failure of those leaves us looking to Big Tech firms to do things they were never designed to do (change human nature, police speech AND make a profit). Things they really can't do without collaboration and intrusive behaviour. But enough of my hair splitting...

Re the percentages, Any platform over a certain size will have racists (and pedophiles and other illegal or undesirable users). The question isn't whether someone on Facebook is being racist. The question is whether Facebook encourage it and whether they effectively moderate it when it is reported/discovered.

Facebook is huge and has much less racism etc than Parler did exactly because they ban it and mod it. They're not perfect, but they're making an effort. That is all you can expect from a platform that allows user content.

Parler encouraged and refused to moderate the same content. That's how it grew from zero users up. That's how it marketed itself. It could have moderated, it removed all sorts of legal content that didn't fit its brand. But it's taken little to no action on violent right wing groups. Quite the opposite, it's encouraged and courted them.

Percentage measures are a measure of the effectiveness of the mods and the actions of the people running the platform and that's what we can reasonably expect. Absolute measures are at least partly just down to size of platform.

The also percentage matters because parler is small right now. If we ignore it because it's "only a night of rioting" what happens when parler has 330mil users like twitter? Or 2.7bn users like FB? You'll get a lot more than 1 genocide out of a mega-parlar...

Density also matters. If I browse reddit, Facebook, twitter and parler randomly, how long before I see crazy conspiracy theories or calls to violence? That's what's concerning here as well: echo Chambers. All the others are much broader, but on parler you just got a very right wing, fact free and urgent set of inputs. That's much more likely to lead to someone being radicalised than the same amount of BS spread over a much bigger collection of cake recipes, kitten pics and funny gifs. That's the other reason percentages (a density measure) matter.

At least that's how I understand it.

Back to my soap box for a moment: I think we have a real problem with people who are not used to social media not having any BS filter. Thats the root cause of both the riots and the Burmese genocide (I assume that what you refer to, correct me otherwise).

We don't have a solution to that. Facebook et al tried to solve it by dilution and moderation. Parler saw it as an opportunity to profit off of and lean into. Those are 2 different business models morally even if its a difference of degree rather than ultimate outcome.

Re: Facebook Incubated the Insurrection

#343
post #69
post #5

Somebody from Facebook recently told me they developed the best system to flag radical/violent content in the world, I pointed out they first developed the best system to spread it.

Although I am concerned about the 1A and big tech being the arbiters of it, it seems like such a system has yet to go to production (probably never will). I understand that there are technical, financial, and legal complexities that are much more nuanced than 'FB doesn't care, as long as they can profit from potentially dangerous content' and 'FB just wants to suppress any speech which doesn't align with their neo-li…

I don't think the NSA was engineered with internet / social networks scale though. But they were already failing in the 9/11 days soo..

Re: Facebook Incubated the Insurrection

#344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Must have missed the part where Apple allows developers to set up their own app stores.

Apple doesn't block websites. If they cared to keep Apple users from being blocked they could have implemented a purely web-based option for accessing the service.

They don’t block websites yet.

The browser makers will find a way to make it happen if they need to.

Re: Facebook Incubated the Insurrection

#345

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…

According to the CEO of Parler, banks and payment vendors, law firms, text and mail services also cancelled on them. Shouldn’t there be some discussion about banning those banks and lawyers too?

Should a law firm be able to quit you? Should a bank be able to cancel on you? We even have major banks cancelling on the US President. At what point ought those who despise you be free to ditch you? These are all parties exercising their freedom of association.

Parler was a red hot potato for anyone who didn’t leave fast enough.

Re: Facebook Incubated the Insurrection

#346
post #5

Somebody from Facebook recently told me they developed the best system to flag radical/violent content in the world, I pointed out they first developed the best system to spread it.

What makes Facebook worse, in my mind, is that people don't seem to care that it's their real name associated with terrible radical, violent and angry comment. At least on something like 4Chan you'd be anonymous, but nope, people will write the most grotesque comments, while everyone can see their real name, where they live and who they work for. Some people don't seem to care, and that's pretty scary.

Worse than what? Parler seems to also enforce real names only

Re: Facebook Incubated the Insurrection

#347

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…

>This was fine with iOS & play store & AWS until they all simultaneously and independently (wink wink) realized it violated their terms of use. The timing seems more likely due to a major public event than a backroom coordination.

I agree. There are people on here seeming to argue that parler was booted “because of TOS violations” which they clearly were not. The winds changed direction and it became expedient to boot them, TOS rules don’t enter into the equation.

But the platforms aren’t being honest about this – they’re claiming that it was about terms of use violations. I’m saying “stop pretending like this argument from the platform makes any sense and let’s have a real discussion about the ramifications of banning groups from a platform when they become political unpopular.”

Re: Facebook Incubated the Insurrection

#348

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…

> 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.

Parler was created because Facebook and Twitter wouldn't allow certain types of speech. Fundamentally that same speech that was banned from Facebook is what got Parler kicked from pretty much everywhere.

Parler knowingly allowed threats of violence, murder, and rape on their platform. Facebook and Twitter grudgingly booted the groups and individuals who made that same sort of speech off.

I do agree that Facebook is given too much latitude, but there are pretty significant gaps. Facebook is mostly used for speech of a more mundane sort.

Re: Facebook Incubated the Insurrection

#349
post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. how do you reconcile this opinion with the reporting that uses gps data from the parler data dump to place parler users at the protest and in the capitol building? https://gizmodo.com/parler-users-breached-…

According to the article "at least several" out of 2+ million active users were in the Capitol. If this is the standard to upload, we would have to ban every social media app ever made.

I'm not trying to argue the Parler ban or at what percentage does it transition from people caused this to the platform caused this. What I am arguing against is the out-and-out misinformation campaign that zero people who used parler were involved in the capitol insurrection. Everyone has access to the receipts.

Re: Facebook Incubated the Insurrection

#350
post #44
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well they didn't develop the platform specifically for spreading radical/violent content. They build a generic platform for spreading thoughts among friends, and racist/violent people used the generic platform to spread their thoughts.

Philip Morris didn’t intentionally develop a system to spread lung cancer, and yet they did.

It's not a bad metaphor since PM and FB both did develop their addiction systems on purpose. Cigarettes are not just dried tobacco leaf, there was a ton of R&D to identify and add chemicals that make them extremely addicting. Same with FB, they have optimized for outrage culture etc. - whatever brings the most "engagement".
Post reply on HN