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

171–180 of 254 posts

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#171

Post by JamesAkka »

mattzito wrote: post #167
peytn wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 trum…

In Arizona, the results of audit are in, please decide for yourself if election was stolen or MSM is covering up by denying and constantly changing their message.

In race decided by 10,457 votes

3,981 voted despite registered AFTER Oct 15 deadline

11,326 voted who were NOT on rolls on Nov 7 but WERE on Dec 4

18,000 voted and then were removed from rolls AFTER election

74,243 mail-in ballots w/ NO evidence of ever being sent

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#172

Post by generalizations »

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?

By letting people make their own decisions. You've no right to make any claims to better discernment of truth than anyone else, and no one else does either. Your claims to truth have no priority above anyone else's.

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#173

Post by the_optimist »

jozvolskyef wrote: post #124
the_optimist wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please tell us more about how telemetry can reveal the moral and intellectual value of a human being.

You are making a straw man argument by assuming that GP claims they can infer individual-level attributes from telemetry while all they claim is to infer population-level attributes.

That is far, far worse. Let’s make sweeping generalizations about the stupidity of all ________ people. Fill in the blank on your favorite enemy.

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#174

Post by mattzito »

generalizations wrote: post #169
mattzito wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not 100% sure I understand your point, but I take it to mean that you're saying that Facebook's role is just an excuse to ban content I (or some groups) don't like?

If there was a true marketplace of ideas, everyone would have an equal playing field to build their own audiences, sway people to their positions, debate and discuss. But that's not how facebook works - engagement drives eyeballs, eyeballs drive revenue, and so Facebook optimizes for engagement, which itself happens to optimize for the most extreme and dramatic and horrifying positions. "Were the COVID vaccines hurried through approvals too fast?" doesn't drive as much engagement as "Covid vaccines are killing thousands, data shows".

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#175

Post by programmarchy »

brokenintuition wrote: post #168
peytn wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's easier to spread information, therefore the ability to spread information should be restricted?

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#176

Post by Dylan16807 »

hammock wrote: post #51
thereisnospork wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think what a person reads has no predictive value on their 'moral value'? (An admittedly vague term) Trivially: someone who reads NRA's weekly newsletter religiously is more likely to be pro gun, pro republican, and pro 'life', for instance

>Do you think what a person reads has no predictive value on their 'moral value'? (An admittedly vague term) Yes, 100%. How can it, if we agree all human life is sacred? Are some people more sacred than others? Holier than thou? (getting downvoted for this) All men are created equal. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Ephesians 6:9 "Slave owners, you must treat your slaves with this same respect. Don't threaten them. They…

At this point you're just arguing semantics about the term "moral value".

But that wasn't even the original term. The first comment in the thread was about whether people are "stupid and superstitious".

So pretend the question was "Do you think what a person reads has no predictive value on how stupid and superstitious they are?"

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#177

Post by Dylan16807 »

the_optimist wrote: post #88
thereisnospork wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please explain how 'pro-life' isn't a moral position. Isn't the position fairly summarized as: 'it is immoral to abort a pregnancy under ? Emphasis mine.

Where exactly do you propose this intersects with the concepts of “stupidity” and “superstition”?

The hell is this question? You're the one who equated stupidity and superstition with "moral value"!

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#178

Post by generalizations »

mattzito wrote: post #174
generalizations wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Facebook's role in amplifying content that is at best misleading and at worst outright falsehoods That's nothing but an excuse.

I'm not 100% sure I understand your point, but I take it to mean that you're saying that Facebook's role is just an excuse to ban content I (or some groups) don't like? If there was a true marketplace of ideas, everyone would have an equal playing field to build their own audiences, sway people to their positions, debate and discuss. But that's not how facebook works - engagement drives eyeballs, eyeballs drive reven…

Yeah, sorry, I wasn't super clear there. I meant to emphasize the characterization of the content: "at best misleading and at worst outright falsehoods".

Calling it that makes it easy to say it should be banned - but remember that the wuhan lab leak hypothesis was characterized exactly the same way. And that turned out to be acknowledged as plausible and even likely. If you're pro-censorship here, then you're in favor of banning speech about things that could be true and important.

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#179

Post by sokoloff »

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…

I don't believe it's anywhere close to half who believe the election was fraudulent. It's widely reported and talked about just like other fringe ideas, but it's surely not half of Americans who think that.

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#180

Post by cyanydeez »

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?

engagement is a false value proposition to maximise. works though.
Post reply on HN