Facebook Incubated the Insurrection • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook Incubated the Insurrection

#361

Post by rsynnott » Thu, Jan 14, 2021, 6:39 PM UTC

waylandsmithers wrote: post #179

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.

I'm not sure self awareness is the best way to put it though if they thought they had the blessing and encouragement of the sitting president. That's what makes this hard to compare to most of the revolutionary uprisings of the past.

I mean, even if they had a signed letter from Trump saying "this is bigly good, do this" that doesn't stop it from being super-illegal. He's not a dictator; he can't just give people license to do illegal things. As they should know very well.

Re: Facebook Incubated the Insurrection

#362

Post by MrMan » Thu, Jan 14, 2021, 6:41 PM UTC

IgorPartola wrote: post #327

leetcrew wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Guns are mostly used to kill people. So we see them as tools only useful for that purpose. this isn't true. guns are used far more often for hunting animals than for killing humans, by multiple orders of magnitude. even more often, guns are used to shoot targets at the range.

Substitute grenades or mines for guns in my analogy if that makes it easier for you. The point is that Facebook is mostly harmless content with a few specific spots of really not harmless content. Parler was mostly harmful content. And before someone tells me that Parler wasn’t, tell me how spreading lies about the stolen election and talking about gassing specific ethnic groups is good for the society.

Man you picked the wrong analogy for this forum! Guns are a form of self expression here, so it's like the 1st and 2nd amendment added together

Re: Facebook Incubated the Insurrection

#363

Post by mancerayder » Thu, Jan 14, 2021, 6:41 PM UTC

enumjorge wrote: post #161

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…

> There was not a peep about their content until from their reps until 1/6. Was it the riot or the senate flipping? Sounds like you answered your own question. Tech companies were lenient on hosting a questionable community, until members of that community tried to overthrow the government. For all the moderation the Parler admins allegedly did, it was an open secret that it was the hang out spot for right-wing extre…

This is a rational and reasonable point. BUT, let me muddy it and make it harder to make your point feel so confidently clear-cut:

Scenario. WhatsApp groups begin to be used as gathering places. Open secret. Bomb or explosion or storming of a government building ensures. Question: is it a question of national security to investigate and pressure to censor or eliminate the platform, and if not why not?

Scenario. The bomby extremist-y people on Parler make up .05% of user base. 99.95, while being mostly right-wing, aren't bomby or national security-threatlike. Question: is the tradeoff of punishing the platform by making it disappear, worth it as the only alternative platform to Twitter (which is relied upon by government, health authorities and journalists as the one true place)?

I have no problem with arguments in favor of censorship. I DO have acid reflux when I see the lack of nuance, the strong confidence and wording like "pretty clear."

No, censorship is never pretty clear and always warrants skepticism and conversation.

Re: Facebook Incubated the Insurrection

#364

Post by rsynnott » Thu, Jan 14, 2021, 6:42 PM UTC

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #268

ashtonkem wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fait…

I mean, currently one 'side' is lead by a guy who's still in complete denial that he lost the election, against all available evidence, so this may not be as 'both-sides'-y as you seem to believe.

Re: Facebook Incubated the Insurrection

#365

Post by dragontamer » Thu, Jan 14, 2021, 6:43 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #28

mrweasel wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> people don't seem to care that it's their real name associated with terrible radical, violent and angry comment The hypothesis of real name policies was that people would be civil online if their real-world identities grounded them. In reality, the tail wagged the dog.

Yeah, but anyone who knew a thing about Usenet back in the day knows that was false.

I mean, it was a theory that was popular in the 00s, mostly because a ton of people at that time didn't have experience with Usenet.

But a lot of vile language was used in the clear, signed with the real names of many individuals. Anonymity doesn't seem to change much. Humans will be humans, whether or not they're anonymous.

Re: Facebook Incubated the Insurrection

#366

Post by redisman » Thu, Jan 14, 2021, 6:43 PM UTC

flowerlad wrote: post #218

Conspiracy theories once confined to the fringe are going mainstream. It is as if the age of reason -- the era of evidential argument -- is ending. Knowledge is de-legitimized and scientific consensus is dismissed. Democracy which depends on shared truths is in retreat, and autocracy, which depends on shared lies, is on the march. All this hate and violence is being facilitated by a handful of internet companies that…

> 2/3rds of millennials have not heard of Auschwitz

If this is true - which I very much doubt as a millenial, isn't that a giant failing of the US school system first and foremost?

Re: Facebook Incubated the Insurrection

#367

Post by Mc_Big_G » Thu, Jan 14, 2021, 6:43 PM UTC

This has been obvious to anyone with a clue since 2015. Facebook is barely more than a propaganda machine where nefarious actors can spread lies and brainwash the masses who are either too lazy, too stupid or simply enjoy the confirmation bias too much to realize they're being manipulated. It's depressing and sad. Even more concerning is that seemingly intelligent people are equally susceptible and perfectly willing to go down the insane conspiracy rabbit hole.

Re: Facebook Incubated the Insurrection

#368

Post by stevesarmpit » Thu, Jan 14, 2021, 6:44 PM UTC

mumblemumble wrote: post #235

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.

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.

The real answer is that neither Google nor Apple should have been allowed to create walled garden unregulated marketplaces that we're forced to use if we don't want our devices hacked.

There is only one logical conclusion and that is that Apple and Google will eventually boot Facebook off their platforms due to increasing amounts of risk associated with mobs and things that allow them to form.

Re: Facebook Incubated the Insurrection

#369

Post by marcod » Thu, Jan 14, 2021, 6:45 PM UTC

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 was kicked out for refusing to take down violence inciting posts...

Facebook on the other hand is doing the bare minimum :p

Re: Facebook Incubated the Insurrection

#370

Post by IgorPartola » Thu, Jan 14, 2021, 6:45 PM UTC

MrMan wrote: post #362

IgorPartola wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Substitute grenades or mines for guns in my analogy if that makes it easier for you. The point is that Facebook is mostly harmless content with a few specific spots of really not harmless content. Parler was mostly harmful content. And before someone tells me that Parler wasn’t, tell me how spreading lies about the stolen election and talking about gassing specific ethnic groups is good for the society.

Man you picked the wrong analogy for this forum! Guns are a form of self expression here, so it's like the 1st and 2nd amendment added together

Hah. I recently had a conversation with someone who pointed out that it is really odd to see guns as anything but a tool. As in, how weird would it be if someone formed their whole identity around their affinity for hammers or wrenches or winches or chainsaws? But when you see a “gun guy” you are like “yup, that’s America”.