Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Capitol Attack Was Months in the Making on Facebook

techtransparencyproject.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 969 posts

Re: Capitol Attack Was Months in the Making on Facebook

#61

Post by mc32 »

JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #13
trident5000 wrote: post #4

Still in the app stores I see.

I'm sure public support for removing Facebook from app stores wouldn't be too different than Parler. If we are principled people, and FB is failing to moderate, then any reasonable person who supported Parler's removal would support Facebook's. What would be different between the two decisions is the sheer magnitude of money on the line, in the case of Facebook's removal -- in capital markets, in employment, etc.

It’s like when the feds go for the capos instead of the mob boss because it’s easier.

Re: Capitol Attack Was Months in the Making on Facebook

#62

Post by ryandrake »

pageandrew wrote: post #12
ardy42 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Still in the app stores I see. That's because this stuff was a tiny fraction of the activity on Facebook (it's HUGE, and still mostly for baby pictures), but a substantial fraction of the content on Parler and Gab (they're tiny , and mostly for the stuff that Facebook and Twitter ban). A lot of people who object to Parler's treatment want this conceived as a simple binary, but it's more of a matter of degree an pro…

At what content share threshold should an app be taken off of the App Stores for hosting objectionable content?

That’s a great question for these app stores. How much nazi content and calls to violently overthrow the government is too much to be allowed on the app store? Kind of like asking the FDA how much arsenic should be allowed in my Cheerios. I’d like to see what their idea of the right threshold is.

Re: Capitol Attack Was Months in the Making on Facebook

#63

Post by JMTQp8lwXL »

CobrastanJorji wrote: post #57
JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure public support for removing Facebook from app stores wouldn't be too different than Parler. If we are principled people, and FB is failing to moderate, then any reasonable person who supported Parler's removal would support Facebook's. What would be different between the two decisions is the sheer magnitude of money on the line, in the case of Facebook's removal -- in capital markets, in employment, etc.

Parler explicitly advertises itself as a place of little or no moderation. Facebook has something like 15,000 professional content moderators whose job is so terrible that they literally get PTSD, but Facebook still fails to catch a lot of it. Being not great at moderation and actively advertising yourself as an unmoderated forum are fairly different lines.

If the negative externalities are the same in both cases, then this isn't an excuse. Just because Facebook has proportionally fewer posts that violate its policies doesn't mean it should get a free pass. The fact that up to 15,000 people have PTSD is the societal cost we pay, even if the vast majority of FB users are using the platform as expected.

Facebook gets a free pass because Facebook is an influential organization. Parler had no network of elites protecting it, because as you say, it had no other purpose beyond being 'volunteer' moderated.

If at a minimum, the attack gets us to think about the type of questions posed by The Social Dilemma, we're trending towards a better place.

Re: Capitol Attack Was Months in the Making on Facebook

#64

Post by booleanbetrayal »

JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #13
trident5000 wrote: post #4

Still in the app stores I see.

I'm sure public support for removing Facebook from app stores wouldn't be too different than Parler. If we are principled people, and FB is failing to moderate, then any reasonable person who supported Parler's removal would support Facebook's. What would be different between the two decisions is the sheer magnitude of money on the line, in the case of Facebook's removal -- in capital markets, in employment, etc.

I think it is also fair to point out that FB does have a review process, policies, and despite not being able to keep up with the volume, has tried to keep the most incendiary behavior off its platform. Meanwhile, Parler has refused to do any of these things as a matter of principle. As much as I hate on FB, I think there is a clear distinction here.

Re: Capitol Attack Was Months in the Making on Facebook

#65

Post by ookblah »

lawnchair_larry wrote: post #17
seattle_spring wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really doesn't, but ok. Facebook has a huge moderation team. Just because some things get through that cause damage doesn't put it in the same category as a platform specifically built to enable terrorism.

Parler is in the same category as facebook and twitter. It’s amazing that people have been gaslit to believe that Parler was intended for or mostly used by extremists. More amazing that people keep repeating this authoritatively when they clearly had no exposure to the service.

Yeah, it's the same category in the way a truck and sedan have 4 wheels. It's amazing that people have been gaslit to alternatively believe it was this was some secure, free speech alternative to Facebook when it's quite evident w/ the data pulls that they had no intention of doing so and were at best, incompetent.

They were trying to growth hack using an extremist leaning, marginalized audience and got burned for it. Roll the dice, accept the outcome.

Re: Capitol Attack Was Months in the Making on Facebook

#66

Post by Nextgrid »

cccc4all wrote: post #55

The unequal treatment is the primary issue with the Parler deplatforming. Facebook and Twitter and Google has hosted much more and much worse content, from all sides. Yet, they are protected by the central authorities and mainstream popular media. Facebook, Twitter and Google should all be deplatformed for equal treatment under mob rules.

Facebook and pretty much all the advertising-supported platforms made billions while directly contributing to this incident by pitting people against each other and showing them divisive, offensive and often false/misleading content.

Parler in comparison doesn't seem to be making any money off this yet.

Re: Capitol Attack Was Months in the Making on Facebook

#67

Post by devwastaken »

trident5000 wrote: post #4

Still in the app stores I see.

1. Refusal to moderate.

2. By far smaller user base, with that base overwhelmingly participating in fear mongering fake news. There are people I know convinced of entirely fabricated stories that contributed to the violence at the capitol.

3. It's clear the admins of parler explicitly allowed content that encouraged the riots and violence therein.

Facebook does admin all of these things. They're also significantly larger. Don't be dishonest.

Re: Capitol Attack Was Months in the Making on Facebook

#68

Post by trident5000 »

CobrastanJorji wrote: post #57
JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure public support for removing Facebook from app stores wouldn't be too different than Parler. If we are principled people, and FB is failing to moderate, then any reasonable person who supported Parler's removal would support Facebook's. What would be different between the two decisions is the sheer magnitude of money on the line, in the case of Facebook's removal -- in capital markets, in employment, etc.

Parler explicitly advertises itself as a place of little or no moderation. Facebook has something like 15,000 professional content moderators whose job is so terrible that they literally get PTSD, but Facebook still fails to catch a lot of it. Being not great at moderation and actively advertising yourself as an unmoderated forum are fairly different lines.

Why does Apple and Google as a duopoly get to determine what businesses must do and not do to exist? (from a practical perspective not a legal one) For me that's the real question.

Re: Capitol Attack Was Months in the Making on Facebook

#69

Post by ForHackernews »

rtkwe wrote: post #46
JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure public support for removing Facebook from app stores wouldn't be too different than Parler. If we are principled people, and FB is failing to moderate, then any reasonable person who supported Parler's removal would support Facebook's. What would be different between the two decisions is the sheer magnitude of money on the line, in the case of Facebook's removal -- in capital markets, in employment, etc.

A decent distinction to make is Facebook on the face of it tries to moderate they're just bad at it and make decisions a lot of people aren't happy with where Parler's moderation system was almost entirely pro forma relying largely on showing reports to a panel of random users.

I'm not sure how hard FB actually tries to moderate extremist political content.

They're pretty damn good at quickly taking down child porn and copyrighted movies/music, because those are areas where big money & potential criminal liability are on the line.

In contrast, nobody's forcing them to censor political extremism, and the usual "engagement" metrics that they and their advertisers track would likely reward that content.

In the last few days, they've shut down thousands of groups and hundreds of thousands of accounts for sharing QAnon conspiracies, which strongly suggests to me that they've had the technical ability to do that for quite a while.

They're not "bad at" moderation, they just choose to moderate certain things and not others.

Re: Capitol Attack Was Months in the Making on Facebook

#70

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

ryandrake wrote: post #52
earthscienceman wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Phones don't pretend to be a moderated public platform. Also, the government has the legal right to monitor phones just as much as they do Facebook via the correct warrants.

Yea the difference in my mind is that the phone company does not moderate content or exercise editorial control over what gets sent over its lines, but Facebook does. So if Facebook decided that this kind of user generated content was acceptable to publish, they should be liable for the resulting problems.

Phones don't allow complete strangers to discover each other and work themselves into a frenzy over their shared angst.
Post reply on HN