Facebook is nearing a reputational point of no return • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook is nearing a reputational point of no return

#421

Post by shadowgovt » Thu, Oct 07, 2021, 7:55 PM UTC

hunterb123 wrote: post #200

Loughla wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're painting with too broad of a brush here, I think. In general, saying 'all' about anything tends to make that statement false at some point. It's easy to knock down a straw-man, I guess is my point.

My point is it's clearly a party issue to censor conservatives in the D party. The only issue R's have with FB is the censorship itself. Does that clear things up or do you have any questions?

I've seen enough pro-Marxists posts brigaded off of Facebook to know that Republicans have no actual problem with Facebook censorship.

Their beef is what Facebook is allowed to censor. They don't want to stop the juggernaut; they want to steer it.

Re: Facebook is nearing a reputational point of no return

#422

Post by ignoramous » Thu, Oct 07, 2021, 7:57 PM UTC

JohnBooty wrote: post #253

ethbr0 wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd hesitate to generalize AOL's fall into Facebook's future. AOL's core proposition was being better than the Internet (more curated, coherent, and faster). When the web and internet exploded in size and scale, AOL's value evaporated. The dumb mergers and other mistakes were window dressing on this landscape transformation. And for years (decades? still?) afterwards, people used AOL Instant Messager (AIM), because i…

Users would need an order of magnitude superior alternative, and most critically, users would need to move en mass. Yeah. Network effect. Arguably nothing on Earth has ever had such a powerful network effect as Facebook. I dislike FB for all of the usual reasons, plus a few of my own. But I still have an FB account. I don't check it very often, and I've got notifications turned off. But ditching my FB account entirel…

> Yeah. Network effect. Arguably nothing on Earth has ever had such a powerful network effect as Facebook.

Facebook's network effect was overwhelmed twice, once by instagram and again by whatsapp... shame both those ended up squarely in Facebook's court. Remains to be seen how much dent can TikTok / Twitch / YouTube / Snap / Azar / Telegram can make on to that once-in-a-generation trifecta.

Re: Facebook is nearing a reputational point of no return

#423

Post by zenithd » Thu, Oct 07, 2021, 7:58 PM UTC

hunterb123 wrote: post #388

AlexandrB wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not defending anything. I'm responding to your statement that Republicans don't want to censor speech. > I haven't seen any calls from any Republicans to censor any speech. They very clearly do! Even setting aside the Rubio bill, you did not respond to either the "you must be patriotic"[1][2] or the "obscenity"[3][4] type of censorship that Republicans love to pursue. [1] https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/pol…

1. The big reveal in that article is "No we're not ready to do that yet". Legally yes it may be a freedom of speech issue because it's at a public university, but who wants political stunts at a game. The audience doesn't, no real debate is happening. Not the same scale as political dissent censorship. 2. Sorry can't view due to paywall, couldn't find an archive 3. You can be arrested in many liberal towns for public…

> but who wants political stunts at a game. The audience doesn't, no real debate is happening. Not the same scale as political dissent censorship.

"No one wants to hear the things that the people I disagree with say, so laws preventing them from saying those things aren't really censorship."

> not exactly a great comparison against the censorship of political dissent.

"The things my opponents say aren't as important as the things I want to say, so censoring me is worse than censoring them."

> but their suggestions aren't the majority in the party and they won't get far. Conversely, the Democrat party as a whole is currently and successfully crafting a censorship campaign.

"My side always loses and the other side is evil and always gets their way, so even if there are dark instincts on my side we should be worried more about the other side."

Re: Facebook is nearing a reputational point of no return

#424

Post by gorwell » Thu, Oct 07, 2021, 7:58 PM UTC

Karrot_Kream wrote: post #385

gorwell wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The internet hollowed out the legacy media's business model, but it's more than that: It also destroyed the ability of the ruling class to control the narrative. Now everything they say and do is endlessly scrutinized by the internet hive mind, which embarrasses them on a daily basis. Nor does it forget `weapons of mass destruction`, `mission accomplished`, `masks don't work`, `wuhan lab leak hypothesis is a racist c…

I agree that there's way too much unnecessary vitrol over FB on these forums, but let's not pretend like FB is some "new, scrappy disruptor" of legacy media institutions engaging in a "coordinated attack". Facebook has just become the _new_ media power and legacy media is trying to reassert itself. I didn't enjoy the stranglehold of legacy media on information flow before and I don't enjoy the strangle of Facebook no…

I'd be more than happy if facebook disappeared. They are a disaster, no doubt. That's not what's going to happen though. Facebook will get exactly what they keep saying they want: regulation and oversight. Facebook will be just as entrenched as ever and will protect the Official Copy of Reality as defined by the ruling class. They are already doing that to some degree and just want it to be codified.

My concern is for the open internet, for the people, for the ability to challenge and dissent, for free speech in practical terms.

Re: Facebook is nearing a reputational point of no return

#425

Post by hunterb123 » Thu, Oct 07, 2021, 7:59 PM UTC

shadowgovt wrote: post #419

hunterb123 wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. The big reveal in that article is "No we're not ready to do that yet". Legally yes it may be a freedom of speech issue because it's at a public university, but who wants political stunts at a game. The audience doesn't, no real debate is happening. Not the same scale as political dissent censorship. 2. Sorry can't view due to paywall, couldn't find an archive 3. You can be arrested in many liberal towns for public…

> Conversely, the Democrat party as a whole is currently and successfully crafting a censorship campaign. Can you support the claim that Frances Haugen is a "fake whistleblower" created as part of a Democrat party censorship campaign with evidence?

They would provide no evidence, sorry, I can only offer you common sense.

She's a long time liberal activist and the Democrats had this whole shit show ready to go at the same time she came out.

There is evidence that they are doing a censorship campaign, by their calls for censorship.

Re: Facebook is nearing a reputational point of no return

#426

Post by shadowgovt » Thu, Oct 07, 2021, 8:00 PM UTC

hunterb123 wrote: post #309

unethical_ban wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely disagree with your assessment. No one is trying to silence people for saying "poor people are worth less than me, taxes are inherently evil, non-whites are probably illegals, and abortion is murder". I'm using the most offensive stereotypes to make the point that no one is even trying to ban those ideas. The concern is the spread of lies known to be generated by bad actors, and how to handle it. Does "mo…

They are banning dissenting information that looks bad for them. Similar to how CCP bans political dissent, Dems ban any stories on Hunter Biden for example. The Dems also ban things that look bad on China, like the lab leak, I suppose because they share some of the same goals. Also the election is perfectly reasonable to question. It's fine to question why the bell weathers and many other record indicators were brok…

A simple search for "hunter biden laptop" on Facebook immediately kicks up three news articles, dozens of site posts, and (in the bubble I can see from my own friends list) several dozen posts on the topic from the point of view that the laptop was real.

If this is Democratic censorship in action, it's incredibly bad at its goals.

Re: Facebook is nearing a reputational point of no return

#427

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Oct 07, 2021, 8:02 PM UTC

MadeThisToReply wrote: post #115

dustintrex wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stratechery makes a pretty solid argument that the calls for regulating "fake news" in general and Facebook in particular is a Democratic reaction to getting outfoxed by Trump's use of social media in 2016: https://stratechery.com/2021/facebook-political-problems/

Do you think the Democratic Party will ever admit that they lost in 2016 not because of "misinformation" or "fake news" or Russian interference or any of the other nefarious conspiracy theories they've promulgated, but because they put forward a terrible, unlikable candidate whom no-one was enthusiastic about and who offered nothing but sanctimony and a continuation of the failing status quo? Maybe it's not Facebook'…

[deleted]

Re: Facebook is nearing a reputational point of no return

#428

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Oct 07, 2021, 8:04 PM UTC

wolverine876 wrote: post #379

> The most damaging claim this week gained the least attention. Ms Haugen alleges that Facebook has concealed a decline in its young American users. She revealed internal projections that a drop in teenagers’ engagement could lead to an overall decline in American users of 45% within the next two years. Investors have long faced a lack of open disclosure. Misleading advertisers would undermine the source of nearly al…

[deleted]

Re: Facebook is nearing a reputational point of no return

#429

Post by Karrot_Kream » Thu, Oct 07, 2021, 8:04 PM UTC

gorwell wrote: post #424

Karrot_Kream wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that there's way too much unnecessary vitrol over FB on these forums, but let's not pretend like FB is some "new, scrappy disruptor" of legacy media institutions engaging in a "coordinated attack". Facebook has just become the _new_ media power and legacy media is trying to reassert itself. I didn't enjoy the stranglehold of legacy media on information flow before and I don't enjoy the strangle of Facebook no…

I'd be more than happy if facebook disappeared. They are a disaster, no doubt. That's not what's going to happen though. Facebook will get exactly what they keep saying they want: regulation and oversight. Facebook will be just as entrenched as ever and will protect the Official Copy of Reality as defined by the ruling class. They are already doing that to some degree and just want it to be codified. My concern is fo…

I agree that the regulation and oversight they seek will be a mistake. They'll help create a regulatory regime which only Facebook will be in a position to comply with and stifle all competition in this space. That is definitely a concern I have with all the vitrol I see here.

Re: Facebook is nearing a reputational point of no return

#430

Post by hunterb123 » Thu, Oct 07, 2021, 8:05 PM UTC

zenithd wrote: post #423

hunterb123 wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. The big reveal in that article is "No we're not ready to do that yet". Legally yes it may be a freedom of speech issue because it's at a public university, but who wants political stunts at a game. The audience doesn't, no real debate is happening. Not the same scale as political dissent censorship. 2. Sorry can't view due to paywall, couldn't find an archive 3. You can be arrested in many liberal towns for public…

> but who wants political stunts at a game. The audience doesn't, no real debate is happening. Not the same scale as political dissent censorship. "No one wants to hear the things that the people I disagree with say, so laws preventing them from saying those things aren't really censorship." > not exactly a great comparison against the censorship of political dissent. "The things my opponents say aren't as important…

> "No one wants to hear the things that the people I disagree with say, so laws preventing them from saying those things aren't really censorship."

There's a difference between protesting at a town square and kneeling at a paid game. Again I don't really support what these state senators are doing (though they said they WEREN'T going to btw, so what are we talking about?)

> "The things my opponents say aren't as important as the things I want to say, so censoring me is worse than censoring them."

Being able to jack off to a certain site online vs shutting down political dissenters can be compared and I can find one more important than the other. That being said, I don't support porn laws and it represents a minority in the party. Evangelicals have a lot less power these days.

> "My side always loses and the other side is evil and always gets their way, so even if there are dark instincts on my side we should be worried more about the other side."

That's not what I said. I said they aren't the majority, EVEN IN THEIR OWN PARTY. Yes some evangelical R's do cross the line with the puritan crap, that doesn't represent the majority nor can it be COMPARED TO SHUTTING DOWN POLITICAL DISSENT.