461–470 of 734 posts
If you don’t like Facebook just don’t use Facebook, WhatsApp, or Instagram. Don’t know why so many people here think parents and adults are not capable of regulating themselves and their kids. It’s honestly condescending to think you know better than your fellow citizens if you’re arguing for government intervention.
If you don't like Oxycontin, just don't use Oxycontin, Dilaudid, or Fentanyl. Don't know why so many people here think adults are not capable of regulating themselves.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The vast majority of what you could call disinformation is directly downstream of mainstream media sources. FB is a platform: the content has to come from somewhere, and it’s usually downstream of these news companies. Should FB be banning Fox and MSNBC? What’s the expectation here?
While "mainstream media" deserves its share of opprobrium, they didn't generate a lot of the "content" shared on Facebook: https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2019-02/14/1... Or if they did, they'd be looking at some consequences.
If you don’t like Facebook just don’t use Facebook, WhatsApp, or Instagram. Don’t know why so many people here think parents and adults are not capable of regulating themselves and their kids. It’s honestly condescending to think you know better than your fellow citizens if you’re arguing for government intervention.
"If you don't like vaccines..." At first I thought that was a bit too facile, they have nothing to do with each other, but ... is that true? Other people using Facebook to spread hate and misinformation (including vaccine misinformation) does affect me. They affect who gets elected (or appointed) and what policies get enacted. We're already seeing real tangible effects at the state level, and with the 2022 elections…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Treat addictive social media companies like addictive cigarette companies. Lets see some huge warning labels about how mentally harmful it is to continue scrolling on facebook right on the first result where its unavoidable to see. Lets tax the hell out of social media companies to generate local revenue just like sin taxes. It won't be a huge change but it will be a great starting point and will come with revenue th…
Uhm a cigarette you cannot change the base ingredient of, it's tobacco. A cig by definition burns the carcinogen tobacco. A site you can specify certain requirements like no doom scrolling or requirements like PUBLISH YOUR ALGORITHMS. Why go full California with another banner? People will ignore it and you will have done nothing of substance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1. The mainstream news pushed numerous stories over the past years without those rudimentary truthiness checks. 2. I disagree with many points in that paragraph: - echo chambers: when was the last time you heard a nuanced "from the other aisle" opinion from a NYT reader; an opinion that wasn't covered in the NYT. Same echo chamber, just a different format. - news companies are small and irrelevant: Seems like this na…
I read the times almost everyday and have plenty of conservative opinions. The Times has multiple conservative columnists and consistently publishes conservative op-eds.
If you want a taste of conservative media, look at what is collated on RealClearPolitics. NYT is very different, you won't see Ross Douthat saying the same things they say in The Federalist.
If you don’t like Facebook just don’t use Facebook, WhatsApp, or Instagram. Don’t know why so many people here think parents and adults are not capable of regulating themselves and their kids. It’s honestly condescending to think you know better than your fellow citizens if you’re arguing for government intervention.
We haven't banned cigarettes or alcohol, but we have put labels, restrictions and public ad campaigns into place to govern the behavior of their sellers, and to inform the public of their dangers. I think it is a terrible place where government does not have a responsibility, as the union of the people, to help inform citizens of the dangers of addictive products and to regulate unethical behavior of the sellers of s…
The former could be easily abused to create a certain narrative.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems internal data shows that FB and Insta harm 14 years old more than other groups.
That could apply to TV, video games, alcohol culture, porn or any number of things. It seems to be the near monopoly that is one of the major issues for FB. Lack of competition seems to lead to a house of horrors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a misleading comparison. From what I read, trafficking / sex slavery was (is) happening via some places on FB, the company knew about it, did nothing. For example. Edit: the article from this HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28741532 , search for "traffickers" and "drug cartels". /Edit. Understaffed moderation teams, although FB had lots of money
Let's try to phrase it in an actionable way for the law-makers to act upon it. Are you suggesting that any profitable company hosting user-submitted content should invest all the profits in moderation teams to the point where they are either a) becoming profit-neutral or b) all the relevant content has been reviewed by a human moderator? And how do you define relevant content -- having had 50 views? 10 views? 1 view?…
Yes, obviously. Why should a company get to profit from sex traffic or any other such content on their platform, just because it would cost money to take it down?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What will you see? 24-7, Emotionally charged "Breaking News" which is simply a different fruit from the same horrible tree. CNN and Fox News are just using different methods based on the data they have available which comes from focus groups, Nielsen, and a whole cottage industry that most people are unaware of.
You're doubling down on your whataboutism and deflection. The key difference between Facebook's "news" feed any mainstream television and print news is visibility. If I record every minute of cable news and subscribe to a bunch of newspapers I can tell you the exact contents of each. If any of them wants to espouse a narrative it's pretty easy to see just by looking at what they've aired/printed. That's not possible…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems internal data shows that FB and Insta harm 14 years old more than other groups.
That could apply to TV, video games, alcohol culture, porn or any number of things. It seems to be the near monopoly that is one of the major issues for FB. Lack of competition seems to lead to a house of horrors.
Meaning that blocking social media for kids and teens is likely on the anvil at some point.