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

161–170 of 254 posts

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#161

Post by davidw »

clcaev wrote: post #160
Sophistifunk wrote: post #157

Notice how everybody seems to have accepted that non-mainstream positions, sources, and interest-groups must be banned, and now they're simply arguing about who should be doing it and how? This is not OK.

The promotion of false things is very profitable; by contrast, true things are far less engaging. Worse, it is more expensive to dispel a mistruth than it is to create and spread misinformation. How do we address this systems design challenge without censorship?

AKA "Brandolini's Law": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#162

Post by eggsmediumrare »

throwitaway1235 wrote: post #143
user-the-name wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, there we go: This reaction, when calling it obvious and blatant lies. Every time. Believing in lies is now normal and expected of right-wingers, and calling it out is called attacking political opinions. It's not. It's lies.

Calling the vandalism that took place on 1/6 at the capital an insurrection, is a grotesque lie. Do me a favor. Call it an insurrection so I can call you a liar.

By what definition of "insurrection" was that not an insurrection?

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#163

Post by dbtc »

clcaev wrote: post #160
Sophistifunk wrote: post #157

Notice how everybody seems to have accepted that non-mainstream positions, sources, and interest-groups must be banned, and now they're simply arguing about who should be doing it and how? This is not OK.

The promotion of false things is very profitable; by contrast, true things are far less engaging. Worse, it is more expensive to dispel a mistruth than it is to create and spread misinformation. How do we address this systems design challenge without censorship?

Make “mistruth” dispelling monetizable? Not sure how that could be done.

I see the root problem as the same as general device addiction. Seeking instathrills. So, teaching mindfulness and attention-strength-training. General mental health.

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#164

Post by peytn »

clcaev wrote: post #160
Sophistifunk wrote: post #157

Notice how everybody seems to have accepted that non-mainstream positions, sources, and interest-groups must be banned, and now they're simply arguing about who should be doing it and how? This is not OK.

The promotion of false things is very profitable; by contrast, true things are far less engaging. Worse, it is more expensive to dispel a mistruth than it is to create and spread misinformation. How do we address this systems design challenge without censorship?

James Madison figured it was better to leave a few “noxious branches to their luxuriant growth” than to risk “[injuring] the vigor of those yielding the proper fruits.” What makes you think now, 250 years into the most prosperous society in human history, is the right time to revisit this position?

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#165

Post by mattzito »

Sophistifunk wrote: post #157

Notice how everybody seems to have accepted that non-mainstream positions, sources, and interest-groups must be banned, and now they're simply arguing about who should be doing it and how? This is not OK.

I don't think most people have issues with non-mainstream positions or interest groups, or at least to the degree of their being banned. What's at stake here is Facebook's role in amplifying content that is at best misleading and at worst outright falsehoods. We've got a situation in this country where half the population believes the election was fraudulently stolen from Donald Trump and a significant portion believes that COVID vaccines are dangerous.

FWIW, I think it's perfectly fine for people to make those claims and put them in the town square, but Facebook doesn't just provide the venue, they amplify and drive users to that content, encourage them to engage with it, and then reshare it to their own networks, putting a veneer of truth and acceptability on it.

EDIT: I said "half the country", I should have said "half of the republican party" - apologies for the mistake.

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#166

Post by war1025 »

eggsmediumrare wrote: post #162
throwitaway1235 wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calling the vandalism that took place on 1/6 at the capital an insurrection, is a grotesque lie. Do me a favor. Call it an insurrection so I can call you a liar.

By what definition of "insurrection" was that not an insurrection?

It was an insurrection in the same way that any other large scale protest was an insurrection.

It was not, however, "the worst attack on our democracy since the civil war" like Biden, other Democrats, and the media at large have claimed. [1]

[1] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/right-wing-erupts-af...

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#167

Post by mattzito »

peytn wrote: post #164
clcaev wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The promotion of false things is very profitable; by contrast, true things are far less engaging. Worse, it is more expensive to dispel a mistruth than it is to create and spread misinformation. How do we address this systems design challenge without censorship?

James Madison figured it was better to leave a few “noxious branches to their luxuriant growth” than to risk “[injuring] the vigor of those yielding the proper fruits.” What makes you think now, 250 years into the most prosperous society in human history, is the right time to revisit this position?

The noxious branches have mutated into kudzu- invasive, ever-spreading, and damaging to the vigor of those yielding the proper fruits. Madison's analogy imagines a world that was true up until 20-some years ago, where most people believed in a common view of the world, with different philosophies about that world.

Today, a significant percentage of the population believes that the election was stolen from donald trump due to extreme election fraud. Another, similar, significant percentage believes that vaccines are at best dangerous and at worst implanting microchips and turning people magnetic. That's people not operating under the same basis of facts as everyone else.

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#168

Post by brokenintuition »

peytn wrote: post #164
clcaev wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The promotion of false things is very profitable; by contrast, true things are far less engaging. Worse, it is more expensive to dispel a mistruth than it is to create and spread misinformation. How do we address this systems design challenge without censorship?

James Madison figured it was better to leave a few “noxious branches to their luxuriant growth” than to risk “[injuring] the vigor of those yielding the proper fruits.” What makes you think now, 250 years into the most prosperous society in human history, is the right time to revisit this position?

To be fair, James Madison didn't live in a time where someone could easily spread their beliefs to millions of people instantaneously. Historical comparisons have their place, but this probably isn't it.

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#169

Post by generalizations »

mattzito wrote: post #165
Sophistifunk wrote: post #157

Notice how everybody seems to have accepted that non-mainstream positions, sources, and interest-groups must be banned, and now they're simply arguing about who should be doing it and how? This is not OK.

I don't think most people have issues with non-mainstream positions or interest groups, or at least to the degree of their being banned. What's at stake here is Facebook's role in amplifying content that is at best misleading and at worst outright falsehoods. We've got a situation in this country where half the population believes the election was fraudulently stolen from Donald Trump and a significant portion believ…

> Facebook's role in amplifying content that is at best misleading and at worst outright falsehoods

That's nothing but an excuse.

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#170

Post by cfjgvjh »

peytn wrote: post #164
clcaev wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The promotion of false things is very profitable; by contrast, true things are far less engaging. Worse, it is more expensive to dispel a mistruth than it is to create and spread misinformation. How do we address this systems design challenge without censorship?

James Madison figured it was better to leave a few “noxious branches to their luxuriant growth” than to risk “[injuring] the vigor of those yielding the proper fruits.” What makes you think now, 250 years into the most prosperous society in human history, is the right time to revisit this position?

For one, now mistruths can be made much more quickly than truths - hello GPT-3 - and can be delivered in a far more convincing way than any other time. I have a hard time telling AI generated video apart sometimes, which will only improve as time goes on.

Nor was there an existence of platforms that not only enable but encourage the creation of echo chambers that reinforce preexisting views and actively attempt to intervene for our attention. There is no practical limit to mistruth "content" that can be made, whereas proper information takes time and effort; I think we're nearing a point where genuine information will simply be crowded out and buried.

Post reply on HN