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

Facebook has exempted high-profile users from some or all of its rules

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 549 posts

Re: Facebook has exempted high-profile users from some or all of its rules

#111

Post by Aunche »

cratermoon wrote: post #80
dogleash wrote: post #21

>“We are not actually doing what we say we do publicly,” said the confidential review. Why do we even have the collective fiction where corporate messaging around a sore topic is treated as trustworthy? Especially with companies that we know lie all the fucking time?

Further, why do we continue to accept the fiction that rules and laws apply to the elite as for the masses? Even the not-so-elite, the Stanford swimmer who brutally raped and assaulted Chanel Miller, though convicted, was given light sentence because of his "bright future", according to the judge.

Brock Turner wasn't elite in any sense besides his acceptance into Stanford, which had been revoked. His father was an electrical engineer and his mom was a nurse.

Also, the judge who made the ruling was fired.

Re: Facebook has exempted high-profile users from some or all of its rules

#113

Post by taylodl »

isk517 wrote: post #105
metalliqaz wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there anyone walking around that actually believes that rules and laws apply to the elite? Some seem to think that the reason this is excused is because (in the US at least) every poor schmuck seem to think they they will be rich and powerful someday and get to partake. I've never found that very credible, but smarter people than me seem to think so.

Depends on the rules and laws. The system tends to be very good at punishing rich people that swindle money from other rich people.

In other words, when the elite are impacted the full force of law will be brought to bear on the perpetrator of the injustice. This used to be called aristocracy. We've spent the past 250 years pretending it doesn't exist here in the States.

Re: Facebook has exempted high-profile users from some or all of its rules

#116

Post by junon »

bambax wrote: post #102
junon wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Setting squirrels on fire and watching the poor things scurry around I guess is cool with Facebook's Community Standards. Unfortunately nothing else you can do about it, either. Who do you even report this to? There's no LEO agency that would spend resources on that even though this is a well known pre-cursor to homicide. Shit like that reminds me how failed society is - to be able to literally torture animals and…

The problem with animal cruelty is that modern industrial animal farming is torture, and torture of the worst kind. So it's diffucult to draw the line without angering powerful groups and rich advertisers.

> and torture of the worst kind.

Not always, depends on where you are. Being set on fire is probably not better than the conditions of industral farms. Let's be realistic.

Re: Facebook has exempted high-profile users from some or all of its rules

#117

Post by rektide »

ep103 wrote: post #39
A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #27

I will jump on this bandwagon and say color me not surprised. The issue is emblematic of a bigger issue though. General trust in our society is generally down. It stretches beyond the sectors normally understood as BS ( advertising, HR come to mind ), but moved to corrupt just about everything else out there. We are a point, where the only organization that is somewhat trusted is military. That is not a good state of…

Because we need regulation of new technologies and to address issues that are becoming endemic and long-standing enough that the general populace genuinely understands them. From neonics and bees to misinformation and facebook. But our political class has adopted a policy that demands no action be taken, as that is the official policy position on all free-market related issues for one of the two major political parti…

> Because we need regulation of new technologies and to address issues that are becoming endemic and long-standing enough that the general populace genuinely understands them.

in my view, regulation is not the answer. what's happened, from my perspective, is that only a small handful of platforms have gel'led into place, have come to take over all of our social media world. this is largely via a system of rampant acquisitions/anti-competitive behavior, & enormously high switching costs of leaving any given network.

we need more people engaged & trying to find answers. we need more networks. we need new ways of networking, new ways of moderating, at scale. the current contenders are mostly well over a decade old & have rotted into place, and trying to regulate these vast networks is not going to bring us to a better place. we have to really journey, to better, less dull places, via innovation & competition.

personally i feel like social networks are elemental to freedom of speech & democratic practices in the world today. if we as a public value speech, believe it important for public good, i would like to see funds set up to fund development & running of public good works. we should fund the fediverse, we should fund people trying to build helpful moderation tools; we should practice actively the values that are important to us.

Re: Facebook has exempted high-profile users from some or all of its rules

#118

Post by adolph »

gilj wrote: post #76
napolux wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a very good question. What if I'm an Hollywood superstar or an NBA player or a billionaire and I want to chat and share stuff privately with my "colleagues". Did the really use fb or instagram like we all do? I always see "official pages" for people like Bill Gates, but where/what do they share in their day to day life?

Ask yourself what you would use if you didn't want the general public to see it, while allowing your friends to see it? You would use anonymous accounts, or you would use use the privacy tools these platforms offer, or you would just use direct messaging apps.

Mitt Romney, the senator from Utah, former Republican presidential candidate and former Massachusetts governor, is also, apparently, the man behind a Twitter account that uses the moniker “Pierre Delecto.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/21/us/mitt-romney-pierre-del...

Re: Facebook has exempted high-profile users from some or all of its rules

#119

Post by r00fus »

metalliqaz wrote: post #98
cratermoon wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Further, why do we continue to accept the fiction that rules and laws apply to the elite as for the masses? Even the not-so-elite, the Stanford swimmer who brutally raped and assaulted Chanel Miller, though convicted, was given light sentence because of his "bright future", according to the judge.

Is there anyone walking around that actually believes that rules and laws apply to the elite? Some seem to think that the reason this is excused is because (in the US at least) every poor schmuck seem to think they they will be rich and powerful someday and get to partake. I've never found that very credible, but smarter people than me seem to think so.

It's a convenient fiction the rich/elite propagate through funding stupid plot lines in books/TV/movies while hiding that the elite get off scott-free and later expunge the records.

Convenient because it allows the state to continue to pass more and more draconian laws that prevent any change to the status quo in which the rich get richer and poor are further dehumanized.

Re: Facebook has exempted high-profile users from some or all of its rules

#120

Post by MattGaiser »

junon wrote: post #73
donatj wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had the option to have the post re-reviewed, which took two days. I mean it could just be theatre, but I assumed on the second round a human reviewed it. From the support response: > The post was reviewed, and though it doesn't go against one of our specific Community Standards, you did the right thing by letting us know about it. Setting squirrels on fire and watching the poor things scurry around I guess is cool…

> Setting squirrels on fire and watching the poor things scurry around I guess is cool with Facebook's Community Standards. Unfortunately nothing else you can do about it, either. Who do you even report this to? There's no LEO agency that would spend resources on that even though this is a well known pre-cursor to homicide. Shit like that reminds me how failed society is - to be able to literally torture animals and…

Most crimes, even if reported, are not meaningfully investigated. I am not sure that is really society failing. Society is still better on that than ever before.
Post reply on HN