Capitol Attack Was Months in the Making on Facebook • Hacker News Board

Re: Capitol Attack Was Months in the Making on Facebook

#211

Post by root_axis » Tue, Jan 19, 2021, 7:51 PM UTC

Red_Tarsius wrote: post #112

>The Capitol Attack Where was this rhetoric when Antifa and BLM burned and looted for months with the blessings of all corporations and the mainstream media? Surely the Capitol Hill has an insurance policy? Or does that moronic point only apply to the common folk? Susan Rosenberg literally bombed the Capitol in 1983 and now serves as vice chair of the board of directors of Thousand Currents, a " non-profit foundation…

This is a disingenuous false equivalence. Local protests that turn violent based on political grievances regarding police violence are not the same as storming the nation's capitol with the goal of overturning a democratic election.

Re: Capitol Attack Was Months in the Making on Facebook

#212

Post by Gibbon1 » Tue, Jan 19, 2021, 7:51 PM UTC

yonaguska wrote: post #159

bananabreakfast wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean the fictitious boogeyman "group" that not one member has ever been identified and the movement for black rights that was widely brutalized by the police? I suppose not, seeing as one is a fantasy and the other clearly had the police paying attention to their plans. Besides, neither has attempted a coup to overturn an election so it's not really the same is it?

Do you honestly believe that Antifa is not real?

Antifa is a very minor left wing subculture centered around protests.

Re: Capitol Attack Was Months in the Making on Facebook

#213

Post by mikem170 » Tue, Jan 19, 2021, 7:55 PM UTC

ardy42 wrote: post #8

trident5000 wrote: post #4

Still in the app stores I see.

> 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…

But what if far more wacked content is on facebook than on parler and gab, because it is so much bigger?

Re: Capitol Attack Was Months in the Making on Facebook

#214

Post by dylan-m » Tue, Jan 19, 2021, 7:57 PM UTC

yonaguska wrote: post #159

bananabreakfast wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean the fictitious boogeyman "group" that not one member has ever been identified and the movement for black rights that was widely brutalized by the police? I suppose not, seeing as one is a fantasy and the other clearly had the police paying attention to their plans. Besides, neither has attempted a coup to overturn an election so it's not really the same is it?

Do you honestly believe that Antifa is not real?

Antifa are Facebook's version of Anonymous.

Re: Capitol Attack Was Months in the Making on Facebook

#215

Post by root_axis » Tue, Jan 19, 2021, 7:57 PM UTC

trident5000 wrote: post #146

_r0fz wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

idk how to tell you this in a way you'll listen to but doing things for good reasons is good and doing them for bad reasons is bad.

You do realize that everyone has their own opinion on what is good and bad right? I cant believe how naive this statement is.

Yes, that doesn't mean we have to respect all opinions equally. The lies about election fraud should not be tolerated even if some people are foolish enough to entertain them.

Re: Capitol Attack Was Months in the Making on Facebook

#216

Post by Pfhreak » Tue, Jan 19, 2021, 7:58 PM UTC

loveistheanswer wrote: post #186

JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The magnitude of threatening the lives of national leadership is different from the property damage of the BLM movements. The implications of each are different, too. Both are bad things.

Do citizens lives matter less than politicians lives?

Of course not. But institutions matter, and shutting down a governing body through threats of violence has consequences far beyond just the immediate politician's lives.

Re: Capitol Attack Was Months in the Making on Facebook

#217

Post by mikem170 » Tue, Jan 19, 2021, 7:59 PM UTC

Consultant32452 wrote: post #116

If the point of the NSA was what they claimed it to be, there wouldn't have been a capitol attack.

I think you mean FBI. The NSA is supposed to only watch foreigners.

Re: Capitol Attack Was Months in the Making on Facebook

#218

Post by godelski » Tue, Jan 19, 2021, 8:00 PM UTC

Nextgrid wrote: post #117

godelski wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure Facebook is acting like an editor here. Those approve every post. Facebook can't practically do they. I'm critical of this case because it's a large group and thus Facebook should have been aware, but it seems like it's a tall order to ask Facebook to migrate everything. Isn't this what section 230 is about? Before you either migrate all our not at all. 230 let's you at least try to moderate (because let…

Facebook does act like an editor by way of their algorithms. Facebook's (and other social media's) timelines are no longer limited to the people you explicitly follow. Whether they have the ability to moderate or not is irrelevant. If you can't afford the obligations of a publisher, don't be a publisher.

But how do you codify that in law? I clearly want some moderation (taking down illegal stuff, border line illegal, and etc) but if your choice is "moderate all or not at all" (as my understanding of pre section 230 is) then no one is going to moderate anything at all. I'm not trying to defend Facebook here, but I feel completely ignoring any of the nuance to the situation is disingenuous. It's not like you can moderate a billion people, you could only do your best (I'm not saying Facebook is doing their best). Removing the nuance of the situation to make an easy argument is exactly the problem that got us here in the first place so let's not continue it.

Re: Capitol Attack Was Months in the Making on Facebook

#219

Post by mikem170 » Tue, Jan 19, 2021, 8:02 PM UTC

usefulcat wrote: post #163

Simulacra wrote: post #3

I'm not sure I believe this. If it was months in the making on Facebook, why did Facebook not do more to stop it? Reading this it actually gives weight that Facebook was just as responsible for the insurrection as Parler.

> If it was months in the making on Facebook, why did Facebook not do more to stop it? Two things: 1) If FB is seen to lean too far either left or right, it will create an opportunity for a competitor to emerge on the other side. FB is huge, so they have a lot to lose in that scenario. 2) They literally profit from the circulation of the very stuff that some would have them sensor. I don't see what is even slightly s…

>2) They literally profit from the circulation of the very stuff that some would have them sensor.

And as far as we know they may have been promoting inflammatory posts to drive engagement. They keep the algorithm they use to do that secret. I think they should show posts from friends in chronological order and let users filter them, or loose their common carrier status.

Re: Capitol Attack Was Months in the Making on Facebook

#220

Post by Nextgrid » Tue, Jan 19, 2021, 8:06 PM UTC

godelski wrote: post #218

Nextgrid wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook does act like an editor by way of their algorithms. Facebook's (and other social media's) timelines are no longer limited to the people you explicitly follow. Whether they have the ability to moderate or not is irrelevant. If you can't afford the obligations of a publisher, don't be a publisher.

But how do you codify that in law? I clearly want some moderation (taking down illegal stuff, border line illegal, and etc) but if your choice is "moderate all or not at all" (as my understanding of pre section 230 is) then no one is going to moderate anything at all. I'm not trying to defend Facebook here, but I feel completely ignoring any of the nuance to the situation is disingenuous. It's not like you can modera…

I'm not talking about moderation here. I'm talking about the fact that Facebook promotes certain content in user's feeds (including content that these users have no direct relationship to - they're not friends with the author nor follow him) in order to generate "engagement". This should stop.

Regarding moderation, it's true that you can't moderate billions of people with 100% accuracy, but you can discourage them from posting undesirable content in the first place by associating real consequences such a a permanent ban (or a monetary loss, by charging an entry fee to create an account) or make them earn the privilege of posting content (for example, not being able to post links until your account has certain reputation of good behavior).

Discouraging people from posting bad content, and not amplifying the reach of bad content for engagement's sake should go a long way.