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

331–340 of 549 posts

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

#331

Post by rovolo »

Ekaros wrote: post #311
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.

And this is why I believe law should be truly blind. Any details such as race, gender, sex, education, political leaning in cases should be hidden and only public prosecution and defenders be allowed. We could easily handle whole process via text.

"In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread."

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Anatole_France

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

#333

Post by vernie »

mtnGoat wrote: post #38
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.

I once made fun of Justin Bieber(said he acts like a baby) on IG, and got a warning. Some guy threatened to Hunt me and my family, kill us and do bad things to our bodies and IG said it didn’t violate any rules, when I reported it. My account can now not even post the word “chump” without warnings. Talk about backwards. It’s very safe to say there is no adult in the room at FB/IG when it comes to rule enforcement. I…

And Bieber himself said "I was like baby, baby, baby oh", so it's not like your were saying anything controversial.

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

#335

Post by asdff »

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.

He is far from the only case of the rich getting differential treatment under the law. These stories are really a dime a dozen. How about this case of a rich boy from the affluent suburbs of LA (palos verdes estates, where Trump's golf course is), decides its cool to become a gang banger, gets involved with a murder, and is acquitted.

https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2018/07/23/cameron-terrell-a...

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

#336

Post by danielrpa »

Jasper_ wrote: post #264

"Turns out managing communication for nearly the entire human race is hard! And requires a lot of people" Yeah, no shit! You say that like Facebook didn't completely strong-arm their way into wanting to become the sole communication provider for the entire world. They struck deals and started entire projects making sure telcos in emerging markets would only get priority to Facebook, and Wikipedia, and basically no ot…

And the size of this problem, managing the entire human race, is part of why they make so much money. They are in front of a lot of people and extracting value from them.

So it seems that they want to keep the profits while not paying the costs to be in this business. While Facebook does bring some benefits to people, it also does a lot of harm, to the point that I'm not sure it's a net positive to the world (or even if it's possible to have a net positive company in this space).

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

#337

Post by ThinkBeat »

It is extremely distressing that a few companies, all located in the same country, and many located in the same state, if not quite the same city, run by a few men with similar politics has the immense power that they do.

Some people do not quite understand why.

Imagine in they were all Russian and owned by friends of Putin.

It should be a matter of national security for other nations to develop regional competitors. It should also be in the inrest of the US to have more internal competition.

This is not easy.

Making Facebook 3.0 is not the problem, though running at Facebook scale is a challenge.

It is how to get users to adopt it. As has been the problem for US upstarts as well.

Thankfully a lot of younger people want other social network platforms than Facebook, but it is a bit pointless when the owners of the new networks are the same people who own the old ones.

I guess TikTok proves it can be done. It also proved how upset US social media gets when competition knocks on their doors.

China, by locking out competition, developed products that are used domestically. There are drawbacks and negative effects of that as well.

I dont know how big VK is in Russia.

Ideally Facebook, Google, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram would be broken into 250 or so different companies spread out among different nations and regions.

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

#338

Post by WarOnPrivacy »

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

I have no overlap between people I know IRL and people I know on SM. They are wholly separate worlds. If I know them IRL, it's text and email - never ever SM.

For me, the point of SM is burnable bridges. It's a place to take risks and later apply the lessons to meatspace. In spite of that, I've cultivated many lasting online relationships but I can't see myself ever meeting any of them in person.

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

#339

Post by mdoms »

gkop wrote: post #307
q1w2 wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The accusation of being "tone deaf" is one of those "it doesn't matter if you're technically right - you're arguing for the wrong team" comments. If you have a substantive criticism to make, you should articulate it.

absurdly tone deaf, as in, does not warrant good faith engagement, “don’t feed the trolls”.

If you're not interested in good faith engagement then I'd suggest not posting in the comments section. It's what we're here for.

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

#340

Post by asdff »

hirako2000 wrote: post #66
gordon_freeman wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want to do victim blaming or shaming here but why would you use any fb product knowing well about their awful business practices like these?

Because of its network effect. Removing facebook, in a way is removing members of our connection circles.

Might be an unpopular opinion but if you have a connection that exists only via social media and not at least via phone calling or some other more personal forms of communication too, its not much of a real connection.
Post reply on HN