Facebook has exempted high-profile users from some or all of its rules • Hacker News Board

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

#121

Post by maccolgan » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 3:48 PM UTC

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…

>policy that demands no action be taken

If that's to be changed, who takes the action? The government? Does the government decide what's bad, and what's not? It's an unanswerable question that none agrees on.

Society hasn't worsened meaningfully, this kind of stuff has always existed, but the internet exposes this to everyone, pulling everyone out of their pre-internet bubbles.

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

#122

Post by KaiserPro » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 3:49 PM UTC

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #82

sdrawkcabmai wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why out of the largest tech companies, like Amazon, Google, Netflix, Microsoft, Facebook, Apple, Twitter (well not large but similar to FB in terms of social network) only one has a reputation for constantly lying and misleading people on purpose in its self-interest? Is it because we pay more attention to FB or is it because FB is different in some way?

In this particular case, it's only Facebook and Twitter that are significant social networks and they are responsible for the biggest spread of misinformation. Google is a close third, if you hold Google responsible for its own search results (and not the websites they link to which their algorithm considers most important). I mean I think they're all overgrown capitalist machines that thirst for their users' data, m…

> Facebook and Twitter [are] responsible for the biggest spread of misinformation

I really wish it was that simple. if it was, we could just ban it all and have done with it. For the US this is a symptom of the splitting of a country into multiple warring parts. Partly whipped up by news networks, print journalism and all by the constant war for your attention.

TV news picks up some stupid tweet, offers it as an morsel for 5 minutes of hate. This pissed people off, they got online and berate the original tweet, the "other side" counter attacks, rinse, repeat. (see critical race theory)

The general public are being played, so that a number of large corporations can get attention enough to sell advertising space.

> Google is a close third, if you hold Google responsible for its own search results

why wouldn't you? I mean they are well known for allowing advertisers to manipulate results. They track your location, what your reading, who your talking to, and sell the products to third parties. If we should be keeping an eye on anyone, it should be google. The level of questioning that FB gets must be applied to any of the internet giants.

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

#123

Post by misiti3780 » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 3:49 PM UTC

"In 2019, it allowed international soccer star Neymar to show nude photos of a woman, who had accused him of rape, to tens of millions of his fans before the content was removed by Facebook."

Ouch

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

#124

Post by yunohn » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 3:49 PM UTC

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.

I often debate this with HNers, so yes, there are quite a few that believe the world is perfectly fair, more so in “democratic” countries.

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

#125

Post by KaiserPro » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 3:50 PM UTC

donatj wrote: post #18

I don't understand the way their enforcement works. I've reported videos of people literally setting live animals on fire and been told there was no violation, but my wife called someone a "loser" and got a week long ban.

simple: if you are important, then you get a moderator.

If you are a pleb, its up to the AI. so unless that video has been fingerprinted, then it'll be approved.

if the sentiment analysis AI says you were being abusive: ban. if you appeal (if you can) it might, perhaps 1/100,00 times be looked at by a human

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

#126

Post by maccolgan » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 3:51 PM UTC

msteffen wrote: post #77

It seems like no one has figured out a good system for moderation on the internet. IIUC, Facebook hired contractors to do it, then realized that that didn't work and created XCheck to cover the visible cases, and is now in trouble because XCheck also doesn't work and rubber-stamps everything. Even before this there were news stories about the horribleness of those contract moderator jobs. Reddit tried to federate mod…

I fear the day when dang retires.

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

#127

Post by threatofrain » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 3:51 PM UTC

I’m not sure how we can ever expect FB to treat everyone fairly; there isn’t a system on earth which does so, including any judiciary ever. Imagine that I were treated the same as a president or king.

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

#128

Post by bambax » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 3:51 PM UTC

msteffen wrote: post #77

It seems like no one has figured out a good system for moderation on the internet. IIUC, Facebook hired contractors to do it, then realized that that didn't work and created XCheck to cover the visible cases, and is now in trouble because XCheck also doesn't work and rubber-stamps everything. Even before this there were news stories about the horribleness of those contract moderator jobs. Reddit tried to federate mod…

I think part of the problem of "moderation" is exposition, and incentives to maximize user engagement. Posts that nibody sees don't need to be moderated. The problem comes from the fact that platforms offer the most visibility to the worst content, because getting users riled up, excited or upset is the core of their business. It's their only business.

Maybe moderation could be solved by regulating the number of likes or reposts a given user can make or a givzn post can receive. Seems a little far-fetched but worth thinking about.

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

#129

Post by adolph » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 3:51 PM UTC

pmyteh wrote: post #45

caseysoftware wrote: post #37

How does this track against Section 230? Now that there is concrete evidence that moderators are exempting people from the rules - aka selectively enforcing their own TOS/AUP - does that change their standing and protections?

No. All that s.230 does is declare that platforms are not the 'publisher or speaker' of content provided by another 'information content provider'. It isn't a common carrier provision, so platforms are allowed to make whatever decisions they like about which people they're willing to host, or what TOS/AUP they want to enforce. For such a simple provision, it's astonishing how many people are writing bad (and sometime…

> confusing what is and what ought to be is a hugely annoying feature of many armchair legal analysts

To be fair, the delusion is shared by many, including law itself. If "what ought to be" was the same as "what is," then what form of law would be needed?

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

#130

Post by lapetitejort » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 3:51 PM UTC

corobo wrote: post #92

brodouevencode wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> removing members of our connection circles Does it really? Whatever happened to just a friendly weekly email?

I'm in my 30s and a friendly email (from a person not relating to business) has never existed in my life haha Man I'd love it if I could communicate socially via email, nobody I know would go for it

Honest question: have you tried writing first? I communicate with a few people via email every few months. It might start with a forwarded email, or just a quick how-do-you-do, then it deepens into long multi-paragraph replies over the course of days. Being able to sit down to write and rewrite what's been going on without someone watching the little typing bubble means I can get more in-depth with how I've been feeling. I would give it a shot. Try sending people a quick email. If they never reply, no biggie. If they do, you may be surprised at the result.