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

241–250 of 969 posts

Re: Capitol Attack Was Months in the Making on Facebook

#241

Post by giantg2 »

rtkwe wrote: post #223
giantg2 wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it different than real life? Look at the county by county map of the past couple presidential elections. You'll see that there is very much a delineation between people with different ideals resulting in echo chambers. We see this in stereotypes of country folks or city folks by the other.

There's a whole trial to present the evidence and how the law is supposed to be interpreted in a court case you can't really replicate in Parler's attempted moderation system. Also the pomp and dressing of state and law do a lot to change how people act. One of the big questions any prosecutor will ask is will you judge solely on the law and they will very quickly strike you if you indicate no or that you know anythi…

Everyone should know about jury nullification. I feel it's a violation of a right to a fair trial if the jury doesn't understand all the options, including that one.

The questions don't really mean much. People could honestly answer that they will apply the law, but how can they if their understanding of it is flawed, especially since that question takes place before the judge educates the jury on the law?

Re: Capitol Attack Was Months in the Making on Facebook

#242

Post by chmod600 »

standardUser wrote: post #85
JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 organiza…

"Facebook gets a free pass..." No, Facebook devotes significant resources to moderation and makes good faith attempts to uphold their policies. Parler did not. That is the difference. "If the negative externalities are the same in both cases, then this isn't an excuse." No one is trying to rid the world of all negative externalities, only to make reasonable efforts to mitigate them. There may never be a perfectly mod…

"good faith attempts"

If it's about intent, rather than results, then it's sure a big coincidence that Parler was deplatformed by Apple, Google, and AWS all within a few days.

Re: Capitol Attack Was Months in the Making on Facebook

#243

Post by multjoy »

trident5000 wrote: post #171
klmadfejno wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Golly it's just so hard to know who to trust. The crowds protesting racial injustice and police brutality? Or the literal, self identifying nazis, white supremacists, and cultish conspiracy theorists trying to kill political leaders. Alas our moral non cognizance in a post modern perspective. edit: to the below, really, no. There's no hyperbole. If your group features nazis, and your group is not making every effort…

Another issue is how any individual frames either side and bases good and bad off of that, often using hyperbole, inaccuracies, wide brushes of their opposing views. Where are all these “nazis” you say that word a lot. “My group” I didnt know I was in a group. You certainly seem to assume a lot and form knee jerk conclusions. Actually proving my point quite well.

The ‘Camp Auschwitz’ hoody and the “6MWE” (6 million Jews wasn’t enough) not enough of a signpost for you?

Re: Capitol Attack Was Months in the Making on Facebook

#244

Post by rtkwe »

giantg2 wrote: post #241
rtkwe wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a whole trial to present the evidence and how the law is supposed to be interpreted in a court case you can't really replicate in Parler's attempted moderation system. Also the pomp and dressing of state and law do a lot to change how people act. One of the big questions any prosecutor will ask is will you judge solely on the law and they will very quickly strike you if you indicate no or that you know anythi…

Everyone should know about jury nullification. I feel it's a violation of a right to a fair trial if the jury doesn't understand all the options, including that one. The questions don't really mean much. People could honestly answer that they will apply the law, but how can they if their understanding of it is flawed, especially since that question takes place before the judge educates the jury on the law?

> Everyone should know about jury nullification.

Prosecutors would really rather you not because it has the chance to completely screw their case and they already put a lot of effort in maintaining conviction records. Also it's one of those things where it's not officially an option there's just no punishment available to prevent it.

It does mean something you can say yes or no to 'will you rule based on the law and the evidence presented in the case' you don't have to know the law to agree to do that. It's not phrased exactly like that either it's a series. [0] #15 for example is basically a question directly about nullification. 13 and 14 are also around the subject as well.

[0] https://www.njcourts.gov/attorneys/assets/attyresources/juro...

Re: Capitol Attack Was Months in the Making on Facebook

#245

Post by betterunix2 »

mikem170 wrote: post #221
betterunix2 wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is the equivalent of saying that someone with HIV created HIV -- after all, it was their body that kept producing more virus particles! QAnon and other BS is a virus that exploits the way platforms determine recommendations and whatnot. The insurrection was not created by Facebook; at most you can only say that Facebook should have been more aggressively policing extremists on their platform (and in fact they ha…

What about the fact that facebook has an algorithm they made deciding on what posts are presented each user, apparently tailored to drive engagement? They can feature all the controversial posts that stir people up for the clicks. Youtube is similar. One could make a case that these algorithms cause these problems, promoting conspiracies/etc for the clicks.

Like I said, the conspiracy theories are a virus that exploits the algorithm, which is otherwise harmless and serves a very different purpose. Youtube recommends children's videos to me because sometimes I let my son watch children's videos, which is a pretty reasonable proposition. The problem is that the very same system can become harmful when it starts recommending more and more misinformation after a person watches one conspiracy theory video; Google has been trying to address this by displaying truthful information when certain topics are detected, but obviously there is work left to do.

The real problem here is that we are focusing on the way that these algorithms can send people into rabbit holes of misinformation, without stopping to consider what the same algorithms do in general or the fact that people actually like recommendations (which are in most cases harmless to society). Again, the response to "HIV propagates via the immune system" should not be "we should get rid of the immune system to prevent the spread of HIV."

Re: Capitol Attack Was Months in the Making on Facebook

#246

Post by trident5000 »

multjoy wrote: post #243
trident5000 wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another issue is how any individual frames either side and bases good and bad off of that, often using hyperbole, inaccuracies, wide brushes of their opposing views. Where are all these “nazis” you say that word a lot. “My group” I didnt know I was in a group. You certainly seem to assume a lot and form knee jerk conclusions. Actually proving my point quite well.

The ‘Camp Auschwitz’ hoody and the “6MWE” (6 million Jews wasn’t enough) not enough of a signpost for you?

Continuing to prove my point. "wide brushes of their opposing views" Thinking everyone who disagrees with you is a nazi because you saw a a guy with a t-shirt is something stupid people do.

Re: Capitol Attack Was Months in the Making on Facebook

#247

Post by throwawaygulf »

Pfhreak wrote: post #229
loveistheanswer wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Which government buildings? The police just left the east precinct Isn't the east precinct a government building? >And who were the armed protestors, what were they armed with? Raz the Warlord of CHAZ giving out assault rifles: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/raz-simone-guns/ >And keep in mind that the SPD did considerably more violence to a larger group over that time. How many people were shot within the protest…

> Isn't the east precinct a government building? Yes, but your framing isn't genuine. Some protestors did wander into an abandoned building. I'm not sure whether any of them were armed. That's a far cry from "Armed protestors took over a government building." > Raz the Warlord of CHAZ giving out assault rifles: Again, your framing is clearly flamebait. I obviously don't deny that Raz was there, and that there appears…

Stoo spreading fake news.

>The first shooting in the protests was by someone driving into a crowd who claimed to have a brother who worked in the east precinct.

Wrong. The first shooting came after an argument between leftists escalated. No vehicle involved.

>The second shooting does not have a clear connection to the protest occupants. The Police chose not to help the shooting victim (and the reason for the shooting is unknown).

Wrong again, it is directly linked because it happened when the protest occupants were marching back from a protest around city hall. Protestors blocked the police and firefighters from entering the area, and once the police made headway, the victim was already moved.

>The third shooting (which occurred outside of the zone) appears to be racially motivated, and according to the victim was allegedly at the hands of a white supremacist. It's unclear if this is related to the second shooting.

Wrong, it was a Black leftist/anarchist that shot himself.

>The sixth and seventh shootings were of two teens who had reportedly driven an SUV through the crowds overnight, including through the park.

Driving a vehicle that was a different make and model, but similar color, and they were killed for it. Two Black teens died because CHOP security extra-judicially shot and killed them because they were misidentified.

Two teens, killed in a no-cop-zone, by "community security", during a protest that was started due to the extra-judicial killings of Blacks... May have been the most ironic moment of 2020.

So, on my counting there were seven shootings:

None of them were racially motivated.

All have direct links to the protest.

Re: Capitol Attack Was Months in the Making on Facebook

#248

Post by yonaguska »

Nextgrid wrote: post #125
yonaguska wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Parler did have plans for generating revenue. I'm not sure what your point is. Facebook and Google were operating at a loss initially as well. It seems like you are arguing that deplatforming Parler is more ok, because they never got to the point of being entrenched tech hegemonies? Or are you arguing that Parler is somehow more quilty because they weren't making money yet, so their intentions are bad?

My point is that Facebook, Google and plenty of tech companies created this insurrection (damaging countless lives and relationships in the process), earned billions off it and are now claiming the moral high ground? Screw them. In this case, Parler doesn't sound that bad. At least Parler doesn't have billions of literal blood money and doesn't attempt to get into my life like Facebook does. If Parler should be held…

Gotcha, I misunderstood.

Re: Capitol Attack Was Months in the Making on Facebook

#249

Post by JohnBooty »

AlexandrB wrote: post #74
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.

Let me paint a hypothetical. I create a new social network startup. Early on, most of the people it attracts are those banned from Twitter and Facebook - since they don't have a lot of other options. In addition to normal social network things, they post some questionable and inciting content. Since I'm a startup, I have a small moderation team and no fancy AI moderation so most of it slips through the cracks. Is my…

    Let me paint a hypothetical.

    [...]

    Since I'm a startup, I have a small moderation team 
    and no fancy AI moderation so most of it slips through
    the cracks. Is my social network "built to enable
    terrorism"?
Not hypothetical to me!

I once ran an for-profit online community. It was a startup, with strictly volunteer moderators. It was an early "social networking" thing; honestly more like "a BBS with some primordial social features". But hey, sounds like your hypothetical to an extent.

This doesn't mean I know anything.

Just means I'm sympathetic to the plight of folks trying to make that sort of thing a reality. For the record, I'd sure like to give it another try at some point myself.

Anyway, intent matters here, to an extent. Parler advertised itself as a more or less moderation-free space.

That's quite different thing from Twitter and FB, with their codes of conduct and actual moderation teams. I mean, the line may be fuzzy, but it's there. I'll be the first person to say that Twitter and FB suck, and moderation efforts for advertising-driven user content mills are probably eternally doomed because their very business model dictates that their user-to-moderator ratio is always going to be laughably huge; far too large to enable effective moderation barring some kind of generational leap in AI moderation tools.

But there is at least the semblance of a good-faith effort there from those two, as much as I dislike them.

Re: Capitol Attack Was Months in the Making on Facebook

#250

Post by ardy42 »

beaner wrote: post #236
ardy42 wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Examples are everywhere, you just have to not be in a bubble and be open to seeing it. I could keep going but you tell me, do you need more? If you strip out enough context, you can make any false equivalency you like. For instance: weren't the Allies and Axis in WWII basically the same? After all, they both used guns and bombs to commit violence.

I can't say that I know enough about that part of WWII, but yeah I agree with that statement. Which isn't to say that it applies here. Simply pointing out that stripping out context can lead to false equivalences is lazy, it needs to be shown. Each of these things certainly has a context that can be gone and read. That's why I included sources rather than not including them. There's also Google. In addition I'd simpl…

> I can't say that I know enough about that part of WWII, but yeah I agree with that statement. Which isn't to say that it applies here. Simply pointing out that stripping out context can lead to false equivalences is lazy, it needs to be shown.

Well, the key part is that the Axis was centered on the imperial ambitions of a a famous genocidal dictatorship that you've probably heard of. There's pretty much a unanimous consensus that that dictatorship was very, very bad and its allies were not much better.

Regarding the recent violence, here the context:

1. BLM is mainly against the police's pattern disproportionate killing of black people, often unarmed, and racism in general. While there had been looting and rioting, it's worth noting that from the very beginning there's evidence that these protests were actually infiltrated by violent agitators with other aims (e.g. https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/illinois-man-accused-o... and https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/23/texas-boogaloo...).

2. The capitol attack was literally against the results of a free and fair election, and deliberately attacked some of the actual institutions of American democracy. There's also no evidence of infiltration, though such claims are now being made to deflect blame. And the riots often loudly expressed violent aims (e.g. erecting a literal gallows and chanting "Hang Mike Pence" https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hang-mike-pence-chant-capi...).

Post reply on HN