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

Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 254 posts

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#91

Post by irrational »

benjaminjosephw wrote: post #59
cs702 wrote: post #21

It's not so much that the key people at the top of Facebook "see no evil," but that they truly, sincerely, earnestly believe there is no evil to be seen, or if there is any evil, they truly, sincerely, earnestly believe they can subdue it with great engineering and great management. They fail to see what every outsider, and many insiders, clearly see. Paraphrasing Upton Sinclair: It is difficult to get people to see…

That sounds like another way of saying "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity". Ignoring so many people asking them to examine their bias and human fallibility is definitely a form of stupidity. That is unless they believe the people are more flawed than they are and that they are better placed to judge what the people need. In that case, it becomes more malice than stupidity.

I'd say more pride than malice.

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#92

Post by stouset »

ipaddr wrote: post #85
stouset wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To say that people shouldn’t be able to discuss it is mind-boggling to me. This is a wild misrepresentation of the opposing perspective. Nobody is arguing that we can't discuss election fraud. The argument—which I'm sure you are actually aware—is that there needs to be some level of credibility to the idea that a) fraud occurred, and b) that it happened in meaningful quantities before we spend significant time, cos…

Stopping people talking about election fraud because you don't feel a certain credibility has been granted is censorship. Whatever gatekeeping rules you agree or don't with shouldn't matter. The gatekeeping is the problem. Being afraid of ideas and shutting down anyone who doesn't speak about approved topics is the issue not whether your gatekeeping rules have been met.

> Stopping people talking about election fraud because you don't feel a certain credibility has been granted is censorship.

Zero people are being stopped from talking about election fraud. You and I are sitting here discussion election fraud right now. The only thing that has been stopped is investigations of claims of widespread fraud for which there is virtually zero evidence.

This is precisely the kind of wild misrepresentation that people—including myself—are tired of fighting. If you need to misrepresent your opponent in order to defeat them, maybe you should reflect: are we the baddies?

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#93

Post by throwitaway1235 »

eggsmediumrare wrote: post #40
war1025 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's weird to think of Facebook as the reasonable people in the room. The left wants to own online political discussion in the US, and they are very bothered that the right finds a ready audience when they are allowed to compete.

No one is talking about censoring arguments about what constitutes reasonable levels of immigration, or whether the government is spending too much, or what rights states should have vs federal gov. IE conservative policy positions. The divide is on topics like anti-vax, nonexistent election fraud, et cetera. IE, actual lies.

So liberals get to pick the political arguments humans get to talk about? You may support that type of social conversation, but don't call it democracy, because it's not.

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#94

Post by throwitaway1235 »

user-the-name wrote: post #42
eggsmediumrare wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one is talking about censoring arguments about what constitutes reasonable levels of immigration, or whether the government is spending too much, or what rights states should have vs federal gov. IE conservative policy positions. The divide is on topics like anti-vax, nonexistent election fraud, et cetera. IE, actual lies.

[flagged]

You call opinions you disagree with lies.

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#95

Post by jhgb »

war1025 wrote: post #44
eggsmediumrare wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one is talking about censoring arguments about what constitutes reasonable levels of immigration, or whether the government is spending too much, or what rights states should have vs federal gov. IE conservative policy positions. The divide is on topics like anti-vax, nonexistent election fraud, et cetera. IE, actual lies.

> The divide is on topics like anti-vax, nonexistent election fraud, et cetera. IE, actual lies. It's funny that the party of "my body my choice" is so against people wanting a say over what goes into their bodies. I am personally vaccinated, but I think it's reasonable to let individuals make that choice. Also regarding election fraud, when on election night you see charts like [1] with enormous one party spikes, it…

> It's funny that the party of "my body my choice" is so against people wanting a say over what goes into their bodies.

Public health is public health, not purely your business.

> I am personally vaccinated,

Good on you!

> but I think it's reasonable to let individuals make that choice.

No, it's not and if you don't see why then you have a major problem with understanding modern medicine.

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#96

Post by throwawayboise »

eggsmediumrare wrote: post #40
war1025 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's weird to think of Facebook as the reasonable people in the room. The left wants to own online political discussion in the US, and they are very bothered that the right finds a ready audience when they are allowed to compete.

No one is talking about censoring arguments about what constitutes reasonable levels of immigration, or whether the government is spending too much, or what rights states should have vs federal gov. IE conservative policy positions. The divide is on topics like anti-vax, nonexistent election fraud, et cetera. IE, actual lies.

This is just saying "as long as I get to define what is reasonable, we can have a reasonable debate about anything"

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#97

Post by walkedaway »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #89
war1025 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's weird to think of Facebook as the reasonable people in the room. The left wants to own online political discussion in the US, and they are very bothered that the right finds a ready audience when they are allowed to compete.

That's a very odd definition of "left" floating around down there in the US. What is being called "left" in that context is nothing but neo-liberal centrist politics, and it has wanted to own political discussion in the US in some form or another for over a century. It's right of centre and frankly conservative on fundamental economics issues [i.e. where all the power is held], and could only be called "left" in the…

> Actual socialist politics are not permitted in US discourse

We have multiple socialists elected to US Congress.

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#98

Post by r00fus »

benjaminjosephw wrote: post #59
cs702 wrote: post #21

It's not so much that the key people at the top of Facebook "see no evil," but that they truly, sincerely, earnestly believe there is no evil to be seen, or if there is any evil, they truly, sincerely, earnestly believe they can subdue it with great engineering and great management. They fail to see what every outsider, and many insiders, clearly see. Paraphrasing Upton Sinclair: It is difficult to get people to see…

That sounds like another way of saying "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity". Ignoring so many people asking them to examine their bias and human fallibility is definitely a form of stupidity. That is unless they believe the people are more flawed than they are and that they are better placed to judge what the people need. In that case, it becomes more malice than stupidity.

Hanlon's Razor has a counter law, Gray's Law (or Clark's Law):

"Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice".

If responsible people are blind to the problem, and claim incompetence, they're probably profiting from it.

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#100

Post by cmrdporcupine »

eggsmediumrare wrote: post #41
ellyagg wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's more that city folk truly, sincerely, earnestly believe country folk are evil, and the fact that Facebook is not programmatically and automatically squashing country folk speech just because city folk want them to annoys city folk.

I'm "country folk" and have never experienced this kind of attitude from "city folk" on the basis of my address. Then again, I do truly, sincerely, earnestly believe the enablers like Fox News, the GOP, et cetera are evil. The people who listen to them aren't evil, just deceived.

Indeed. So-called "country folk" are a serious minority, and if the right in the US had to rely on rural voters exclusively for support they'd never win an election.

For sure, there's a right wing voting block that might see itself as "salt of the earth" or "country folk" or "common sense"; but it's just an ideological package held together with shoestring and old gum made out of old school nativism, pro-life stuff, and an appeal to a sense of lost opportunity.

And I grew up in rural Alberta, Canada, oil country heartland of "country folk" in Canada, the Texas of Canada, and I live rural now, too. It's never been the case that all "country folk" vote right or hold right wing opinions, even if a sizable chunk do.

I do think "city folk" hold some pretty stereotyped views of rural life though.

Post reply on HN