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

501–510 of 549 posts

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

#501

Post by otterley »

lavabiopsy wrote: post #498
otterley wrote: post #496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not sure that this is a problem that can be solved solely through software and automation. It’s a business problem. Automation is a means to solve this problem - and the one Facebook uses to save money and operate at scale - but when it comes to making content judgments, people are often better than machines at doing it. “Report” buttons can be an input into the mechanism, but they need not be authoritative. The…

So are you saying you could develop the solution but Facebook won't offer you enough? I don't think it makes a difference whether the system is automated or not.

No, I’m saying Facebook could probably solve this problem with the managers they already have, but with different priorities set by top management, and at greater expense.

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

#502

Post by hoseja »

hoseja wrote: post #246
kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

*excluded

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

#503

Post by Akronymus »

solveit wrote: post #252
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…

The only systems that have figured out moderation at scale are Wikipedia and StackExchange. But see what HN thinks about that. Nobody wants to admit that the only type of moderation that actually works at scale is an entrenched group of somewhat-expert overly-attached users gatekeeping contributions with (what looks like to the novice and sometimes even to the established user) extreme prejudice on a website with int…

I don't think that the wiki moderation is good at all for anything where opinions really matter. (Politics, certain movements and such)

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

#504

Post by lavabiopsy »

otterley wrote: post #501
lavabiopsy wrote: post #498

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So are you saying you could develop the solution but Facebook won't offer you enough? I don't think it makes a difference whether the system is automated or not.

No, I’m saying Facebook could probably solve this problem with the managers they already have, but with different priorities set by top management, and at greater expense.

Sorry but that seems to be understating the issue. Are you saying it's only a matter of changing the entire company's priorities and increasing the budget by large amounts? If it were that easy then it seems any other wealthy company would have solved it by now.

And in any case, have you tried applying at Facebook? If you have the answer to their problems and are capable, then why not?

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

#505

Post by otterley »

lavabiopsy wrote: post #504
otterley wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I’m saying Facebook could probably solve this problem with the managers they already have, but with different priorities set by top management, and at greater expense.

Sorry but that seems to be understating the issue. Are you saying it's only a matter of changing the entire company's priorities and increasing the budget by large amounts? If it were that easy then it seems any other wealthy company would have solved it by now. And in any case, have you tried applying at Facebook? If you have the answer to their problems and are capable, then why not?

I’m not particularly interested in solving Facebook’s self-created problems. Fifteen years ago, I was interested in helping them from a tech growth side, but I can’t imagine working there now, especially in light of the company culture. My priorities would clash with those of the existing upper management all the way up to the CEO (who is completely unchecked by the Board, BTW).

As for this particular issue, I consider celebrities and politicians who stir up trouble largely as fat to be cut. Anyone who builds that much gravity and controversy tends to cause more problems than add value, and detracts from democratizing the platform.

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

#506

Post by otterley »

mannanj wrote: post #282

I got banned yesterday for quoting a nazi official on propaganda: “Propaganda must facilitate the displacement of aggression by specifying the targets for hatred.” - Joseph Goebbels Yeah. Facebook fucking sucks. Oh, the reason? Encourages danger and violence (which in their broad definition now includes quoting individuals who were associated to dangerous regimes). Welcome to the day and age in which another organiza…

Let’s be fair here; quoting Goebbels is never a good idea unless you’re writing a history book or a research paper. If you don’t understand why, the problem is you, not Facebook.

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

#507

Post by lavabiopsy »

otterley wrote: post #505
lavabiopsy wrote: post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry but that seems to be understating the issue. Are you saying it's only a matter of changing the entire company's priorities and increasing the budget by large amounts? If it were that easy then it seems any other wealthy company would have solved it by now. And in any case, have you tried applying at Facebook? If you have the answer to their problems and are capable, then why not?

I’m not particularly interested in solving Facebook’s self-created problems. Fifteen years ago, I was interested in helping them from a tech growth side, but I can’t imagine working there now, especially in light of the company culture. My priorities would clash with those of the existing upper management all the way up to the CEO (who is completely unchecked by the Board, BTW). As for this particular issue, I consid…

Well I think that seems to answer it then -- if nobody who is capable wants to work there for any amount of money, then nothing will change, and the self-inflicted problems will probably get worse. And I believe the smart thing to do from a business perspective would be to severely limit the reach of posts by problem users and then charge them increasing amounts of money to promote posts to the decreasing pool of users who won't block it.

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

#508

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

stackbutterflow wrote: post #481
otterley wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was on Facebook from almost the first day, when it was only open to college students (and the domain name was thefacebook.com). It was definitely not as you describe. There was no ranking of faces. You can see for yourself by searching for “2005 Facebook screenshots”.

So I searched and this is what Facebook looked like back then: https://api.time.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/facebook-pro... I think it looks so much better than the current design.

That's not 2005, I believe Facebook didn't get photo albums (i.e. non profile photos) until 2007-2008.

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

#509

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

KaiserPro wrote: post #94

This should have been obvious during the election when trump clearly violated the "don't mislead the public about how elections work" when he claimed that postal votes are what ever it is he said it was. That is a clear ban. It says so in the "community guidelines" (side note, you should really read the community guidelines, they are a great set of rules for keeping a community vibrant and happy, assuming they are en…

Trump should have been banned after his Mexican speech, in 2016.

Not sure how you can ban a candidate for the Presidency of the US from a US-based service, though.

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

#510

Post by esyir »

notatoad wrote: post #474
anshumankmr wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

StackExchange’s moderators have a huge bias issue against newcomers to the field (some can say it is justified) and sometimes, (though I have only personally noticed this), there is a huge bias against those who can’t speak English well. I have noticed at times, people with high rep make rude remarks as they misunderstand what the original author had to say. For me, I take time to edit questions with poor grammar and…

i think that's the point that the parent is trying to make: the only sites that have "figured out" moderation have erred almost ridiculously on the side of rejecting a ton of content, often in biased ways. the sites that do this generally seem better for it, even if it's not really fair. moderation that works well is generally not very nice. content moderation that isn't somewhat cruel doesn't work very well.

Sounds a bit like the interviewing problem, eh? Maintaining a quality bar fundamentally seems to involve a high false negative rate.
Post reply on HN