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

241–250 of 549 posts

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

#241

Post by q1w2 »

josefresco wrote: post #88
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.

My wife (an American) also got flagged for saying "Americans are selfish". She then made a post about our RV (camper) asking about sewer "hook ups" at a campground and was flagged for posting what looked like a sex ad. We (the kids and I) now lovingly call her "hate speech Mom".

"hate speech" has become so watered down.

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

#242

Post by solveit »

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.

> We wouldn't accept that from a manufacturer of a physical product.

Not sure what the correct analog for physical product is, but we accept everything up to and including catastrophic failure resulting in deaths from physical products under the right circumstances, so you're going to have to be much more specific.

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

#244

Post by SamBam »

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.

It is tone-deaf. You seem to be regaling it as an inconvenience or problem that Zuckerburg has. It's not an inconvenience, it's a personal bodyguard that he alone has. If he changes devices, he has a team to allow him to log into it. How is that relevant?

The rest of us don't get that. If someone hacks our account and changes our password, the majority of us have little hope of really getting FB's attention to help us fix it.

The point about popular accounts getting 10000x the number of abuse reports is much more relevant.

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

#245

Post by Karunamon »

pjc50 wrote: post #221
metalliqaz wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"Total paranoia" might be overselling it a bit. "Total skepticism", that is, "presumed bullshit until otherwise substantiated" is much more reasonable, and it can be applied to all media sources, legacy and otherwise.

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

#246

Post by hoseja »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #228
colpabar wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Nobility is specifically included from Forbes wealthiest list. They really don't want to draw attention.

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

#247

Post by fallingknife »

rvz wrote: post #93
aero-glide2 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps it's just me, but reddit front page is much more toxic and filled with misinformation compared to most Facebook groups. (Niche subs are really good though).

The biggest one in terms of users is Facebook. Everyone has given Facebook so many chances to change for years and yet, they are incapable of changing. Not even the fines are scaring them. They are so tiny, they are laughing at them whilst they rake in billions in revenue. They will never change and it will only get worse. They are the problem.

If what fb does makes tons of money and doesn't break the law, why would you expect them to change? And sure you can say well change the law. But the law that lets them do it is the 1st amendment.

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

#248

Post by vmception »

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.

> Also, the judge who made the ruling was fired.

(By recall election right?)

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

#249

Post by streamofdigits »

throwawayboise wrote: post #69
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?

I put all of the companies you name in pretty much the same basket, and avoid them as much as I can. I don't shop on Amazon, I don't use Netflix, Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter. I don't use Apple products. I do use Android and Google Docs/Drive/Mail but my next phone will probably be an open one and I could drop the GSuite stuff without too much pain, mostly laziness that I haven't already.

In a few years this will be considered the only sane approach to digital life. There is still some road to travel though in terms of making it easy for the majority of people.

In retrospect the "big tech" era will be such a sad, dark, insidiously toxic period. So much hypocrisy, so much in-your face failure to honor basic social contracts, so much misallocated talent...

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

#250

Post by minsc__and__boo »

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…

This may be a naive question, but isn't that a problem with the content reporting system itself? That it requires blanket exceptions?

Popular users are going to have more false-positive reports than others, but when those reports deviate from the norm on individual pieces of content (say a nude photo) then the system should still be able to pick it up. It's an exercise in feature extraction.

The login blanket exception (for the CEO of the company) is a different use case and purpose than content control, one that blanket exceptions can solve efficiently.

Post reply on HN