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

Facebook freezes Venezuela president Maduro's page over Covid-19

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 259 posts

Re: Facebook freezes Venezuela president Maduro's page over Covid-19

#211

Post by TulliusCicero »

adolph wrote: post #147
TulliusCicero wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> given that they are in effect, judge and jury on their own private platform You say this like it's some weird, bizarre thing. Who else should be judge and jury by default on a private platform? Should there be some government committee any time a new social media company starts up? In any case, to answer your question: if the issue is that they've become too powerful, and there's a reasonable case to make there, th…

> private platform From where does the idea of “private” come? Is it to distinguish its controllers from that which is government controlled?

That's the normal use of 'private' in this context, yes.

Re: Facebook freezes Venezuela president Maduro's page over Covid-19

#212

Post by TulliusCicero »

geoduck14 wrote: post #160
TulliusCicero wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> given that they are in effect, judge and jury on their own private platform You say this like it's some weird, bizarre thing. Who else should be judge and jury by default on a private platform? Should there be some government committee any time a new social media company starts up? In any case, to answer your question: if the issue is that they've become too powerful, and there's a reasonable case to make there, th…

You can actually sue in court (in America) if a business kicks you out for protected reasons. So we don't need a governmental committee- we have the courts to arbitrate our cases for us.

And you think courts should be arbitrating every time some internet message board bans someone for posting porn or spam or a swastika? Because that's the implication of what you're saying here: let's let courts handle it.

Is this a serious suggestion? The courts are already overwhelmed, packed full of cases. And you want to throw potentially millions of minor cases where someone's mad about getting banned for flaming some other user onto their docket?

Re: Facebook freezes Venezuela president Maduro's page over Covid-19

#213

Post by TulliusCicero »

whydoyoucare wrote: post #86
TulliusCicero wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For their own platform? Facebook is, obviously. How is this even a question? It's not like a head of state doesn't have plenty of power to send messages through other means. Since when are private actors obligated to let them speak on private platforms?

Facebook doing it of its own volition is one thing, and I'd argue they are within the right to do so. Government pressurizing Facebook to censor stuff is entirely other ballgame, which poses a bigger risk, and nobody seems to be paying attention to. (Most attention is given to the content being censored, not the actors behind the censorship).

I agree that this is an issue. The first amendment should protect private actors here from government influence over their own membership policies, other than certain narrow exceptions like protected classes.

Don't like that they ban too many left-wingers/right-wingers? Feel free to get mad about it, just don't get thinking that this is somehow illegal, or should be.

Re: Facebook freezes Venezuela president Maduro's page over Covid-19

#214

Post by TulliusCicero »

loveistheanswer wrote: post #131
TulliusCicero wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For their own platform? Facebook is, obviously. How is this even a question? It's not like a head of state doesn't have plenty of power to send messages through other means. Since when are private actors obligated to let them speak on private platforms?

>How is this even a question? >Since when are private actors obligated to let them speak on private platforms? This is the same argument slave owners used to defend their "private property", and that business owners used to ban black people from their private property. So, judging by the history of human rights, it's a perfectly valid question

> This is the same argument slave owners used to defend their "private property"

The difference is that slavery is inherently wrong, whereas deciding on your own internal membership policies for some club, or internet forum, or what have you, is not inherently wrong.

This is pretty obvious, because nobody's mad about the small private actors doing the same kind of thing. 99.9999% of the companies or private groups around, nobody gives a shit that they get to decide to ban whoever they like. They're just mad at Facebook and Twitter because they're big. Whereas "small time slaveowners" are still disgusting criminals.

And I get that, these companies being more powerful, their decisions have wider knock-on effects. But the right solution is still alternatives, not the government micromanaging and second guessing every single decision they make. At most, you could mandate some kind of 'nutrition facts' policy, where policies must at least be up front and transparent.

Re: Facebook freezes Venezuela president Maduro's page over Covid-19

#215

Post by shpongled »

Izkata wrote: post #149
shpongled wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Killing viruses or bacteria in vitro is a vastly different thing than killing them in vivo. Also, if you want to cite some evidence, Braz J Microbiol might not be the best source. https://xkcd.com/1217/

> Killing viruses or bacteria in vitro is a vastly different thing than killing them in vivo. > https://xkcd.com/1217/ Carvacrol is a component of oregano oil, a common herbal supplement. This is one case where the XKCD strip is clearly wrong. > Also, if you want to cite some evidence, Braz J Microbiol might not be the best source. Is the Brazilian Journal of Microbiology not trusted or something?

> This is one case where the XKCD strip is clearly wrong.

How so?

> Is the Brazilian Journal of Microbiology not trusted or something?

Well it's not Nature, that's for sure

Re: Facebook freezes Venezuela president Maduro's page over Covid-19

#216

Post by jjnoakes »

macspoofing wrote: post #56
umvi wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would argue many people (if not most) don't want platforms to be arbiters of truth. Because it's very hard to arbitrate truth in an unbiased manner. And more often than not truth arbiters eventually fall into the trap of promoting their own agendas.

I would argue that people don't want the platforms to adjudicate THEIR views and THEIR side. They are fine with the other side getting the shaft. The woke, mainstream media and Democrats, the groups that are succeeding in pushing Twitter and Facebook and social media to increase censorship are doing it because it's advantageous to them because either their political opponents are being suppressed, or, as is the case…

I don't know how to speak on behalf of "people" in general but I know that I personally am in favor of some solution that weeds out misinformation while still giving all political parties voices.

If you want to talk policy, values, goals, and agenda, go for it. If you want to talk hate or amplify things known to be factually untrue, you should be fact checked loudly and clearly, and if that doesn't change what you are saying, you should not get to say it any more.

Now how to achieve that is of course a completely different issue and seems quite difficult...

Re: Facebook freezes Venezuela president Maduro's page over Covid-19

#217

Post by dukeofdoom »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #44
dukeofdoom wrote: post #32

Say you are successful tech Billionaire. Watching your other billionaire friend's hubris get the better of him, and decide to take up flying only to crash into the ground. You go through some phase of self reflection, and realize you won't live forever, and so decide you can make the world a better place. You consult some self help books, listen to some new age mysticism, and read some exciting woke ideas about gende…

A shallowly cynical take, if I've ever seen one. What comments like this do their best to ignore, is that many people, perhaps most, agree that platforms bear some responsibility for managing misinformation and the like. But arguing that point requires targeting popular will, instead of an unpopular rich dude. Much easier to demonize someone few people like, than debate a position held by many in earnest.

That may be, but looking back through recent history, there were plenty of powerfull people that fell into the grips of the fashionable, obscure and laughably wrong ideas, and ideologies. And imposed them on society through fiat, murder, and force.

The price of being wrong, always seems to pass down in society. Those at the bottom suffered the most in wars.

Just because you are INTJ, a billionaire with funds, and a fashionable reading habit, does not make you a qualified social engineer.

Generally, the masses going about, acting in their own self interest, talking to each other freely, makes for a better world, than one imposed upon them, through the dictates of a King.

Re: Facebook freezes Venezuela president Maduro's page over Covid-19

#218

Post by dukeofdoom »

jjnoakes wrote: post #216
macspoofing wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would argue that people don't want the platforms to adjudicate THEIR views and THEIR side. They are fine with the other side getting the shaft. The woke, mainstream media and Democrats, the groups that are succeeding in pushing Twitter and Facebook and social media to increase censorship are doing it because it's advantageous to them because either their political opponents are being suppressed, or, as is the case…

I don't know how to speak on behalf of "people" in general but I know that I personally am in favor of some solution that weeds out misinformation while still giving all political parties voices. If you want to talk policy, values, goals, and agenda, go for it. If you want to talk hate or amplify things known to be factually untrue, you should be fact checked loudly and clearly, and if that doesn't change what you ar…

You can start by stuffing a sock in their mouth, if that doesn't work, cut of their tongue. If they still dare to speak their mind, well than do whats been done in the past, and off their head....if only you could be King.

Re: Facebook freezes Venezuela president Maduro's page over Covid-19

#219

Post by lucian1900 »

alkonaut wrote: post #179
lucian1900 wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

[flagged]

Have you read what you linked? There’s a lot of supposition and extrapolation on undefined terms. A lot of words as an excuse to bash a country already under attack. It’s not like Sweden doesn’t have a long history of imperialism either.

I’m well aware we communists aren’t welcome on HN. Considering it’s US-centric and has a bourgeois focus, it’s not surprising it would welcome only right-wing politics.

Still, it doesn’t cost me much to push back a bit on imperialist rhetoric. Maybe one or two people will reconsider their world view in terms of material interests.

Re: Facebook freezes Venezuela president Maduro's page over Covid-19

#220

Post by dredmorbius »

dannyw wrote: post #19
pumaontheprowl wrote: post #17

A lot of this is starting to remind me of the way Galileo and Darwin were treated for announcing their breakthroughs. I know nothing about this drug Maduro is touting, but I can't help worrying that one of these days somebody is going to find an actual cure and the world will never know about it because big social media companies exile them for wrongthink.

You don't announce the discovery of a miracle cure via social media, you announce it via clinical trial papers.

How did Galileo and Darwin announce their discoveries?
Post reply on HN