Facebook's “see no evil” strategy • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#191

Post by Karrot_Kream » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 2:56 AM UTC

gusgus01 wrote: post #186

sokoloff wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I believe the current belief is that 50% of Republicans believe it. So if you extrapolate to the American Population you would be looking at about 50 million Americans who believe the election was stolen. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/may/24/republicans-...

So that's roughly 50 million / 331 million or 15.1%. Nothing close to 50%.

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#192

Post by helloworld11 » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 2:57 AM UTC

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?

This has always been the case and false rumors have a long history of spreading like wildfire. They're nothing new to social discourse, not even in the era of digital social media. Yet somehow, many of the most successful and humanitarian societies have managed to avoid forcing a uniform "misinformation-free truth" down peoples throats through censorship of contrary opinions without collapsing in ruin. If the freedom to claim whatever you like is profitable to many, the freedom to repress those who say what it doesn't like is even more profitable to a small group of powerful interests and government officials.

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#193

Post by brokenintuition » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 3:03 AM UTC

programmarchy wrote: post #175

brokenintuition wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I'm certainly not advocating for restricting free spread of information. My point is just that opinions are informed by the historical context they came from, so the comparison isn't really relevant given the drastic differences between communication abilities in the relevant time periods. Making the point that we shouldn't revisit that opinion because we're in prosperous times without considering the differences in the context informing the opinion seems disingenuous to me.

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#194

Post by sellyme » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 3:04 AM UTC

programmarchy wrote: post #190

dralley wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By analogy, consider how frequent spam phone calls have become as a direct result of VoIP technology making it trivial to automate them. Email has been in that position for a long time, so much so that the quality of censorship is frequently advertised as a feature by mail services.

Sure, but filtering spam is different than the censorship being done by social media platforms. I can easily opt in to calls and messages from a person or group by adding them to my contacts. However, if my contact is deplatformed, then that removes my ability to opt in. So the locus of agency shifts from me to some corporate or governmental authority, which is what people actually have a problem with.

You're confusing a protocol (email) with a platform (e.g., Twitter).

You can still pretty easily "opt in" to receiving their communications. You just can't force someone else to be the middleman. If they set up their own blog or forum you're completely free to visit that.

This is similar to how you can't force bob@example.org to forward you your friend's messages, but your friend can send them to you from their own personal email.

The locus of agency is on your friend to put in the effort themselves if they can't find anyone willing to help them spread their speech.

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#195

Post by war1025 » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 3:07 AM UTC

eggsmediumrare wrote: post #185

war1025 wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

What was worse?

Even if by some crazy implausibility it was the "greatest threat to our democracy since the Civil War", that's like saying, "Man, I just got a paper cut and that is sure the worst injury I've had since that accident where I was paralyzed from the waist down"

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#196

Post by biggc » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 3:07 AM UTC

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.

Notice how whenever someone talks about holding Facebook for its algorithm spreading and promoting outright lies and falsehoods, e.g. active antivax propaganda, people start talking abstractly about “non-mainstream positions”?

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#197

Post by biggc » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 3:09 AM UTC

programmarchy wrote: post #175

brokenintuition wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

s/information/misinformation, then yes, yes it should be

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#198

Post by generalizations » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 3:09 AM UTC

mattzito wrote: post #187

generalizations wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 favo…

Oh, sure, I think the problems in these kinds of discussions is that each reader has their own mental picture of the type of content that is being described, which colors the discussion. I think the wuhan lab leak hypothesis is a good example - I don't think anyone serious or in a position of power was arguing that the statement, "It is possible that COVID-19 was the result of a lab leak" should be banned or restrict…

> I don't think anyone serious or in a position of power was arguing that the statement, "It is possible that COVID-19 was the result of a lab leak" should be banned or restricted.

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/facebook-lifts-ban-on-w...

> "The social media giant banned any content that asserted COVID-19 was man-made or manufactured in February but told Politico the decision has now been reversed."

There was no distinction made between 'lab leak' and 'intentional leak' when censoring the conversation. To me, it's a great example of why censorship of these things should be nipped in the bud. There's plenty more examples if you ddg "lab leak theory".

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#199

Post by nr2x » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 3:26 AM UTC

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.

There is a lot of space between “banned” and “not amplified for profit”.

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#200

Post by afavour » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 3:29 AM UTC

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.

“non-mainstream positions” is covering a lot in that statement. “provably false information that endangers the public” is a more accurate rephrasing.

In any case, the article doesn’t even come close to saying that. It details an internal discussion at Facebook about whether they should make data about the most popular posts public. Where is the word “ban” even mentioned?