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

221–230 of 549 posts

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

#221

Post by pjc50 »

metalliqaz wrote: post #106
mandmandam wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In short, I'd guess that's because the companies reporting on them are owned by billionaires, and shareholders with bags of fossil fuel, war, banking, etc, stocks. For example, the company reporting this is the WSJ, owned by Murdoch. Why are the WSJ seen as respectable? Why are any of the MSM seen as respectable? They're all objectively untrustworthy on basically everything except sport. They're all in it together, a…

Yeah, better to listen to someone with unknown credentials on Substack, or whatever I dig up on Facebook. That will put the MSM in their place. By the way did you know that hydroxychloroquine does cure COVID, if you also take it with tons of Zinc? Big Pharma (TM) doesn't want you to know.

That's kind of the problem: the "legacy" media are unreliable, but people seem to take that as license to transfer total trust to some completely random media organisation that has god-knows-what agenda. Because it's very difficult to operate in an environment of total paranoia about every statement.

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

#222

Post by IncRnd »

nindalf wrote: post #164
gkop wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your analogy relating to Zuckerberg is absurdly tone deaf.

I think it’s valid because it’s an example of a system not working for a small minority while still working well for others. And more pertinently, there’s no plans to fix it for him specifically just because he’s the CEO. It’s better to spend time making the account compromise system better for the vast majority of users instead.

> I think it’s valid because it’s an example of a system not working for a small minority while still working well for others.

That's not what the article mentioned, which is why people are saying you don't seem to understand. The article mentioned there is a system, which does work for a small minority of people, not that it doesn't work for them. It's as if you unintentionally have blinders on and can't see the issue.

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

#223

Post by tclancy »

nindalf wrote: post #200
otterley wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You haven’t really touched on the main problem discussed in the article, which is that to Facebook, there are special users - mainly celebrities and politicians - who get to play by different rules than the rest of us. Social media was supposed to help level the playing field of society, not exacerbate its inequalities.

I did touch on that problem. Like I pointed out Zuckerberg can’t log in on new devices anymore. That’s because of the thousands of attempts per second to log into his account. Those attempts happen because he’s a celebrity. His experience is objectively different because of who he is. It’s the same with Neymar. How many times do you think his profile is reported for any number of violations by people who don’t like h…

I'm not sure what you're point really is. You keep harping on Zuckerberg not being able to log in on new devices but dismiss the entirety of the report and the internal review as "Yeah, well, at scale there's nothing you can do." If that's the case, shut it off. We wouldn't accept that from a manufacturer of a physical product.

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

#224

Post by otterley »

nindalf wrote: post #214
otterley wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I concede that some accounts probably deserve that specific type of protection. However, it doesn’t explain the other kinds of protections these people have, including exemption from content-based rules. Those are the issues of real concern.

The fact that the content couldn’t be taken down was a bug. I feel like you, the author and most critics of Big Tech discount the possibility of bugs existing.

I’m sure you’ve read the old fable of “The Boy Who Cried Wolf.” Facebook has made voluntary decisions at the highest levels, reported over the course of the past decade, to shield certain people from its content rules that apply to the general public. So if it was a bug this time (and I have no reason to believe that it wasn’t), I’m sure you can understand people’s skepticism about it.

Moreover, I assume this bug was reported internally, probably pretty quickly. How long did it take to get fixed? If the fix wasn’t prioritized and corrected within, say, a day (along with a regression test to ensure it never happens again!), then that would be pretty damning of the company’s culture and priorities as well.

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

#225

Post by nindalf »

tclancy wrote: post #223
nindalf wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did touch on that problem. Like I pointed out Zuckerberg can’t log in on new devices anymore. That’s because of the thousands of attempts per second to log into his account. Those attempts happen because he’s a celebrity. His experience is objectively different because of who he is. It’s the same with Neymar. How many times do you think his profile is reported for any number of violations by people who don’t like h…

I'm not sure what you're point really is. You keep harping on Zuckerberg not being able to log in on new devices but dismiss the entirety of the report and the internal review as "Yeah, well, at scale there's nothing you can do." If that's the case, shut it off. We wouldn't accept that from a manufacturer of a physical product.

Shut what off, exactly?

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

#226

Post by bdowling »

huijzer wrote: post #180
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?

I can only guess why, but I do know that it’s not new. For example, around 1920, journalists were praising Hershey town as a town without crime even though the town had many incidents (Michael D‘Antonio).

For some journalists, idealism trumps integrity.

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

#227

Post by winternett »

This is the reality of our new modern world that spans far beyond Facebook.

It is the popular, chosen, and paying that succeed on a dramatically increasing level, bolstered online by code and algorithms. This is how ideological and sales monopoly is bolstered and protected with promotion, paywalls, and glass ceilings.

It is no wonder why wealth inequality is surging worldwide as it's becoming more impossible to find wealth for everyone but those chosen and those in control...

The very minute Facebook and Twitter changed timelines to non-linear formats, and when Reddit began to hide downvotes, the ruse began... I subconsciously doubt that we can really trust analytics properly anymore to be honest, because there now always seems to be a hidden agenda in IT now to suit a specific purpose like profit, messaging, promotion, or subversion.

I'm no crusader, but the ideal that anyone can find success on their own merits and hard work is a lie in the digital world especially now, and a lot of the people that look like successful business minds are in reality just wealthy starters that are losing money they started out with while "portraying themselves" as successful and self made...

The few platform providers/controllers are the only ones making new money, this is why they have so much disposable cash that they spend on wasteful things like flying penis shaped objects outside of the atmosphere, and on failed ideas like triangular shaped pick up trucks...

Talent, wisdom, track-record, and accomplishment are being overlooked for Sensationalism, wealth, and popularity at an all time high in my opinion... This unreasonable and harmful hypocrisy is a critically bad trend that is being promoted, made popular, and deceptively normalized by social media sites as engineered hype.

No wonder why it's driving people to do bad things to hop onto the popularity train... :/

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

#228

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

colpabar wrote: post #161
taylodl wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I find it funny how we use phrases like "Russian oligarchs" all the time without batting an eye, but we never use them when referring to the Bushes or the Clintons in the US.

The power resides in generational wealth not some commoners who got lucky. These people don't need to hold elected office because they can buy whatever they want, including manipulating government in their favor.

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

#229

Post by ipaddr »

colpabar wrote: post #161
taylodl wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I find it funny how we use phrases like "Russian oligarchs" all the time without batting an eye, but we never use them when referring to the Bushes or the Clintons in the US.

The Clintons and Bushes are not really oligarchs. They represent a monarchy maybe of inherited wealth and status.

Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Sergey Brin, Mark Zuckerburg are better examples of oligarchs because they managed to create their own wealth and with that obtained political clout.

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

#230

Post by sophacles »

bvhg3 wrote: post #219
sophacles wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Primary source: "persons familiar with the matter".

Ahh, well I don't know or care who would be familiar with your observation skills. Im asking for data, do you have that or not?
Post reply on HN