Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Whistleblower to Congress: Facebook products harm kids and democracy

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

511–520 of 719 posts

Re: Whistleblower to Congress: Facebook products harm kids and democracy

#511

Post by sreque »

marcusverus wrote: post #224
lexapro wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't anti-authoritarian typically considered a leftist position? So the opposite of what you are saying?

If you want an anti-authoritarian ideology, you're looking for classical liberalism / libertarianism. In the US, neither the left nor the right could be considered 'anti-authoritarian', as the left embraces broad government control of economic matters (a welfare state, environmental regulations, relatively high taxes), while the right embraces government control of social matters (regulating abortion, supporting 'tra…

The reality is that government and law are based on values, culture, and moral and religious beliefs. It has always been this way and always will be. I think the biggest mistake in your framing is the incorrect belief the left are not interested in strict social controls. They are absolutely interested in strict social controls, including:

Redefining gender and enforcing it in all institutions. Also, redefining marriage and enforcing this definition in all institutions. The left would love, for instance, to remove non-profit status from churches that don't support their definition of marriage.

Redefining racism and enforcing the definition in all institutions. The idea, for instance, that disparate outcome proves racism is deeply and fundamentally flawed, and yet the idea has been enforced and become entrenched via judicial activism, laws, and executive action.

Redefining sexual norms and force-teaching these norms to children in public schools.

Forcing citizens to pay for taxpayer-funded abortion.

Indoctrinating children with woke ideology in public schools, with support from the federal government. This is morally equivalent to forcing a particular religion into public schools, if not worse.

Cancel culture is a direct manifestation of the left's desire for full control over social behavior.

The left used to say play the anti-authoritarian card when they were the underdog in the culture wars. Now that they are winning, they no longer need to, nor would it be appropriate for them to do so.

Re: Whistleblower to Congress: Facebook products harm kids and democracy

#512

Post by slg »

RandomLensman wrote: post #486
slg wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Blaming Facebook for societies' problems is far too easy. People manage(d) to get into civil wars, genocides, etc. People die eventually anyway, why should we blame murderers? The obvious answer is that speeding up a negative result is still bad even if that result is eventually inevitable. > Domestic US political issues will not be resolved by making Facebook disappear (why does it not seem to have similar impact e…

Maybe, maybe not. Taking Facebook away might now also act as an accelerant of divisions - hoping for a simple solution might not cut it. Looking at social dynamics coupled with power politics one should always be prepared for really nasty outcomes even on well intentioned actions. If we as society decide that Facebook (and maybe other similar things) are too dangerous to have, lets do that right and not in a fit of a…

That is argument for universal inaction. There is always more research that can be done to study potential outcomes, but eventually action needs to be taken.

We are staring at a house fire and at a certain point we need to stop debating the potential water damage and turn on the hoses or the entire house will burn down.

Re: Whistleblower to Congress: Facebook products harm kids and democracy

#513

Post by SavantIdiot »

Steltek wrote: post #467
SavantIdiot wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you live in a shed in the Rockies, I got bad news for you.

Skip the trite cliches, what are you talking about? My driver's license, passport, whatever does not directly encode my relationships other than simple demographics. I'm not under an illusion that I myself am personally anonymous. I'm sure I leave enough breadcrumbs around the Internet but that's my (dubious) choice. However, force me to verify my identity, use my real name, or enter a phone number and I lose that op…

Every time I swipe my credit card, an intimate profile of who I am and what I do is updated. I don't see the difference between verifying my identity to use a service, and the thousands of other electronic activities I perform on a daily basis that succinctly outline what I do.

This nonsense that one more organization asking for ID is somehow the straw the broke the camels back is decades too late.

You say you are under no illusions, and then you demonstrate with words that you are under illusions.

You don't see it? It is clear as a bell to me.

Re: Whistleblower to Congress: Facebook products harm kids and democracy

#514

Post by handrous »

oarabbus_ wrote: post #502
handrous wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Could you point me to a law that codifies this as crime? The other posts that I meant "should be" aren't entirely wrong, but "crime", like most words, has more than one meaning, so that interpretation isn't necessary for my use to be correct (and isn't what I intended). From Webster's 1913 for "Crime (n)": 2. Gross violation of human law, in distinction from a misdemeanor or trespass, or other slight offense. Hence…

>The other posts that I meant "should be" aren't entirely wrong, but "crime", like most words, has more than one meaning, Crime has a very specific meaning when we're talking about a legislative body conducting a hearing. It's not open to interpretation. A crime is something that violates existing statutes of law, period.

> A crime is something that violates existing statutes of law, period

What are you trying to communicate here? You're really stretching to defend your poor reading.

[EDIT] rather, you're really digging in—"my poor reading is the only correct reading, because I say it is, therefore the post is what's wrong, not my reading".

Re: Whistleblower to Congress: Facebook products harm kids and democracy

#515

Post by r00fus »

sreque wrote: post #455
BoxOfRain wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's entire schools of left-wing thought that are deeply anti-authoritarian, many types of anarchism for instance are deeply rooted in collectivist ideology. There's also all manner of socialist schools of thought that favour strong degrees of civil liberties. The kind of Enlightenment-era ideologies that many modern Western democracies build their very foundations on today would have been considered radical, unco…

So you sound like you are probably a lot more educated about politics than I am, so hopefully I can learn something from you, but I think one problem in practice is that collectivist views always seem to end in authoritarianism. Even in the U.S., the unions that resulted from collectivism became authoritarian and corrupt in their own right, the teacher's unions of America being a prime example of corruption and autho…

Amusing you seem to have some idea of consequences of politics movements - however, so-called conservatives (and libertarians), by unseating government power (which is the only organization large enough to challenge corporate power) leaves a power vacuum for wealthy/corporations to usurp that power.

So anti-government-reguluation leads to a different flavor of fascism by corporate elites (all owned by the very wealthy).

Re: Whistleblower to Congress: Facebook products harm kids and democracy

#516

Post by TameAntelope »

prancer_or_vix wrote: post #508
TameAntelope wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if the analogy holds, considering most of the complaints around social media are that it's not accessible or open enough , and engagement with social media doesn't directly create value for Facebook. They derive that value from the associated ads, as opposed to the items you listed being a) costly for its users, and b) the actual product. Social media costs nothing.

> engagement with social media doesn't directly create value for Facebook. Yes it absolutely does. They get value by showing ads. If you're staring at facebook for 4 hours a day, that's a lot more ads than if you log in for 2 minutes and then log back out. The cigarette comparison is being used a lot, so it's more like if Philip Morris was paid for every drag someone takes. Getting folks hooked, smoking a pack a day…

I think you missed the word "directly" in what you quoted from me. If Facebook directly made money off of engagement, people would pay for the Facebook service. The extra step of "sell ad space to advertisers" makes engagement an indirect money maker.

Philip Morris doesn't make money every drag someone takes, that's exactly my point. It's different.

Also, cigarettes are bad for you in any quantity. Social media is not obviously bad for you in any quantity, it's the knock on effects of being constantly aware of what your peer group is achieving and how you react to that which creates problems (among other indirect issues ultimately caused by your decisions related to social media, not the social media itself).

Re: Whistleblower to Congress: Facebook products harm kids and democracy

#517

Post by pvaldes »

KingMachiavelli wrote: post #354
handrous wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't want Facebook fixed and I do want Facebook harmed. I don't want the government to meddle with what types of things people can say online, I want them to ban the business model of stalking people online and selling intimate details of their lives. If the problem is Facebook choosing profits over public good, then cut off the profits. This is obvious. Bingo. Make stalking at scale the same as stalking by cree…

It's not the same at all. You are certainly allowed to give someone permission to 'stalk' you in exchange for money, a service, etc. Stalking is only illegal because that person "doesn't" have your permission. Lots of normal & legal activities are only illegal outside of a contract. There is also a ton of precedent for 'passive' tracking. Security cameras, dash cams, etc. all record stuff that is in plain view. The i…

> Stalking is only illegal because that person "doesn't" have your permission

Do all people scanned by Facebook have a Facebook or Instagram or whatever account?.

Re: Whistleblower to Congress: Facebook products harm kids and democracy

#518

Post by wrycoder »

sreque wrote: post #455
BoxOfRain wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's entire schools of left-wing thought that are deeply anti-authoritarian, many types of anarchism for instance are deeply rooted in collectivist ideology. There's also all manner of socialist schools of thought that favour strong degrees of civil liberties. The kind of Enlightenment-era ideologies that many modern Western democracies build their very foundations on today would have been considered radical, unco…

So you sound like you are probably a lot more educated about politics than I am, so hopefully I can learn something from you, but I think one problem in practice is that collectivist views always seem to end in authoritarianism. Even in the U.S., the unions that resulted from collectivism became authoritarian and corrupt in their own right, the teacher's unions of America being a prime example of corruption and autho…

The problem is that people who can successfully enact a revolution or who aspire to become the decision makers of the collectivist society (it's never run democratically) are not temperamentally individuals who would actually govern with a light touch.

Once people like that are in charge, it can take many generations for government to become more liberal (in the classical sense). When individual rights are lost, they are very hard to recover.

Re: Whistleblower to Congress: Facebook products harm kids and democracy

#519

Post by passivate »

spywaregorilla wrote: post #183
yodsanklai wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I do want Facebook harmed So much hate... Has Facebook really caused that much suffering to you? Seriously, just don't use it if you don't like it. For most people, it's just a social network where they post innocuous stories and stay connected with their friends.

And for others, it radicalizes them to conspiracy theories. "Just don't use it" isn't nice advice when you're mom's become an antivaxxer because facebook kept telling her about it and made it seem like local common consensus.

If somebody is going to believe in crackpot stuff, then it doesn't matter who or what the source is. I don't agree with the idea that we need to coddle the masses.

Re: Whistleblower to Congress: Facebook products harm kids and democracy

#520

Post by Noos »

slg wrote: post #458
RandomLensman wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blaming Facebook for societies' problems is far too easy. People manage(d) to get into civil wars, genocides, etc. without it quite well. Domestic US political issues will not be resolved by making Facebook disappear (why does it not seem to have similar impact everywhere?) - it might be an amplifier, but in the past folks have found all sorts of other ways to amplify or not even needed amplification because they cou…

>Blaming Facebook for societies' problems is far too easy. People manage(d) to get into civil wars, genocides, etc. People die eventually anyway, why should we blame murderers? The obvious answer is that speeding up a negative result is still bad even if that result is eventually inevitable. > Domestic US political issues will not be resolved by making Facebook disappear (why does it not seem to have similar impact e…

It's not fixing facebook. No one was saying "fix facebook" when Barack Obama was praised for using it and it was part of his strategy to win. For example:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/feb/17/obama-digital-...

The "facebook is bad" started happening when Trump won, imo. Essentially the establishment on both sides realized that it could also be used against them as much as for them. It feels similar to AM radio, which conservatives successfully used and you started to see cries for the Fairness Doctrine to be reinstated.

I agree with the post that this wont solve anything.

Post reply on HN