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

181–190 of 549 posts

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

#181

Post by sophacles »

elzbardico wrote: post #156
whatshisface wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's not overestimate the critical thinking skill advantage separating journalists from other people. I can check the citations as well as any editor, sometimes better because I know some things about math and have no reason to be biased. When there's no scene to be at with a camera and nobody is getting interviewed, I just don't see what the media has to add. Spending years pouring over account records? Interviewin…

Most journalists nowadays seem pretty gullible and hard set on their preconceived world views. I fail to see any advantage in critical thinking skills on the media class.

Well here's one thing: they tend to cite sources. Do you have any actual data on your assertion? What you "fail to see" is merely a statement of your observation skills. I would like to compare that with other sources that aren't so clearly biased.

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

#182

Post by criddell »

jcranmer wrote: post #160
criddell wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what sense is Facebook not a publisher? Their algorithm acts as an editor, choosing what to show me. If they had a simple chronological feed, then the platform argument would make sense. If the NYT created a service where the articles I see were selected algorithmically, would they suddenly not be a publisher?

The "publisher" versus "platform" distinction is 100% a made-up distinction to motivate bad §230 takes. What §230 does, very simply, is say that websites posting user-generated content are not liable for that content, even if they moderate the content. It was passed in response to a pair of court decisions that concluded that a website that moderated content (including, for example, weeding out profanity or pornograp…

Thanks for clarification.

I finally looked up the actual text of §230 and it says this:

> No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

So I guess the NYT would be responsible for articles they generate but I suppose they would get a pass for anything they re-publish (like from a wire service).

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

#183

Post by nradov »

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…

HN only works because YC doesn't sell ads and explicitly treats it as a loss leader to support their investing business.

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

#184

Post by cratermoon »

SamBam wrote: post #141
Aunche wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

GP referred to "not-so-elite." In this case, the small bit of "eliteness" would be white, male, athlete (All-American), upper middle class, accepted into a good college. And that's probably enough to justify saying he has a "bright future," in this country and day and age.

That's white, male, athlete, upper middle class, accepted into a good college, living in America.

From a global perspective, the eliteness is far more than a "small bit".

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

#185

Post by ThrowAway145 »

jdavis703 wrote: post #174
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.

Yes. Donald Trump was impeached twice and has an unknown number of civil and criminal investigations ongoing. If a billionaire and the leader of a major political party is in this much trouble, it kind of shows that elites do get in trouble.

Trump is an extreme example. He basically did everything he could to get himself into trouble. He operated as a troll essentially and instigated the public on Twitter, followed by an attempt to overthrow the government.

If we looked at normal and even favorable politicians like Nancy Pelosi or President Biden, we might find something worth investigating as well but has gotten swept under the rug.

Punishing politicians in itself can be political even...

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

#186

Post by brodouevencode »

EamonnMR wrote: post #81
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?

It got replaced by social media

It did, but did it ever _have_ to be?

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

#187

Post by SamBam »

cratermoon wrote: post #184
SamBam wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GP referred to "not-so-elite." In this case, the small bit of "eliteness" would be white, male, athlete (All-American), upper middle class, accepted into a good college. And that's probably enough to justify saying he has a "bright future," in this country and day and age.

That's white, male, athlete, upper middle class, accepted into a good college, living in America. From a global perspective, the eliteness is far more than a "small bit".

Sure, but in this case we're comparing the treatment (by courts, etc) of the elite vs non-elite in America.

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

#188

Post by cratermoon »

Aunche wrote: post #111
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.

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.

> wasn't elite in any sense besides his acceptance into Stanford

Pardon my rudeness, but if that's the only thing someone sees as elite, I'd suggest that the person's own elite status is just a notch below them.

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

#189

Post by vorpalhex »

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 don't think universal moderation (a moderation standard across all users) is possible or even desirable.

Different users want different things. There are users who never want a single even mildly insulting word. There are users who want unlimited freedom.

The best you can do is to break down moderation and let people opt into a level and form of moderation. Tell them upfront what they are getting and let them pick (or let them make their own moderation rules that apply clientside).

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

#190

Post by pmyteh »

criddell wrote: post #182
jcranmer wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "publisher" versus "platform" distinction is 100% a made-up distinction to motivate bad §230 takes. What §230 does, very simply, is say that websites posting user-generated content are not liable for that content, even if they moderate the content. It was passed in response to a pair of court decisions that concluded that a website that moderated content (including, for example, weeding out profanity or pornograp…

Thanks for clarification. I finally looked up the actual text of §230 and it says this: > No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. So I guess the NYT would be responsible for articles they generate but I suppose they would get a pass for anything they re-publish (like from a wire service).

> So I guess the NYT would be responsible for articles they generate but I suppose they would get a pass for anything they re-publish (like from a wire service).

Exactly. Though, interestingly, the second part of your statement is only true for the online edition. For NYT-on-paper, they're liable for all of it. The same with the comments section: online, it's covered by s.230; offline, the 'letters to the editor' section in print is the responsibility of the paper.

Post reply on HN