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

Facebook Execs Nixed Employees' Plan to Quell Hate Speech: Report

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 85 posts

Re: Facebook Execs Nixed Employees' Plan to Quell Hate Speech: Report

#71

Post by mcphage »

actually_a_dog wrote: post #61
helen___keller wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think this phenomenon you're seeing is because of anything Facebook is doing to metaphorically stir the pot. Maybe not stir the pot specifically, but it’s their user experience and they own it. Which post shows up first on my feed greatly alters the user experience, and FB has to make a decision on that. It’s not chronological, and it seems to frequently involve me seeing 3 day old shitstorms.

I see. It sounds like they are showing you posts that get a lot of activity. That does kinda make sense: if a lot of people similar to you have already interacted with a post, that's a signal that you might like it, too. But, tell me: would it make any difference to you if you saw these "3 day old shitstorms" when they were only 1 day old? If anything, what they really want you to do is discover these posts in their…

> It seems like this actually represents a failure of algorithmic moderation, to me.

It's a failure of a lot of things, but ultimately a failure to create a product desirable to anybody not interested in flinging shit.

Re: Facebook Execs Nixed Employees' Plan to Quell Hate Speech: Report

#72

Post by actually_a_dog »

mcphage wrote: post #71
actually_a_dog wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see. It sounds like they are showing you posts that get a lot of activity. That does kinda make sense: if a lot of people similar to you have already interacted with a post, that's a signal that you might like it, too. But, tell me: would it make any difference to you if you saw these "3 day old shitstorms" when they were only 1 day old? If anything, what they really want you to do is discover these posts in their…

> It seems like this actually represents a failure of algorithmic moderation, to me. It's a failure of a lot of things, but ultimately a failure to create a product desirable to anybody not interested in flinging shit.

It seems you may have forgotten the old saying: if you're not paying for it, you're the product. Perhaps these practices create an ideal (or, at least better than what "display everything chronologically would) environment for displaying ads to receptive people.

Re: Facebook Execs Nixed Employees' Plan to Quell Hate Speech: Report

#73

Post by mcphage »

actually_a_dog wrote: post #72
mcphage wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It seems like this actually represents a failure of algorithmic moderation, to me. It's a failure of a lot of things, but ultimately a failure to create a product desirable to anybody not interested in flinging shit.

It seems you may have forgotten the old saying: if you're not paying for it, you're the product. Perhaps these practices create an ideal (or, at least better than what "display everything chronologically would) environment for displaying ads to receptive people.

> It seems you may have forgotten the old saying: if you're not paying for it, you're the product.

Nope, I didn't forget—I don't entirely mind being their product, but it seems like Facebook forgot the fact that, if I'm their product, then they need to make it worth my time to go to it.

> Perhaps these practices create an ideal (or, at least better than what "display everything chronologically would) environment for displaying ads to receptive people.

Maybe it does, but it doesn't seem like they're firing on all cylinders. Instead, it seems like they're trying to get more and more out of fewer and fewer "products".

Re: Facebook Execs Nixed Employees' Plan to Quell Hate Speech: Report

#74

Post by varispeed »

mdoms wrote: post #62
varispeed wrote: post #37

So if you see a racist post, making derogatory remarks against your race and you report it, Facebook reviews it and says it meets community standards, then you send it for reconsideration and nothing happens for weeks... What are the next steps? Do you report Facebook to the Police or are they immune? I read many times that someone posted something on Twitter and police raided their home the next day. Can they do the…

The next steps are you move on. Dwelling on a Facebook post for weeks is not healthy.

I am trying to establish whether indeed we are living in a two tier society, where laws mostly only apply to the poor.

Re: Facebook Execs Nixed Employees' Plan to Quell Hate Speech: Report

#75

Post by tsol »

david38 wrote: post #68
helen___keller wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An example in case you’re curious: I once learned about a train meme group from a friend. I’m a transit enthusiast, so I joined and I loved this group. for a while it was one of the highlights of Facebook.com for me. I’m lib-left politically, which fit with the lefty slant of the group, but still there came to be frequent shitstorm threads all within the scope of lefty discourse. for example, upzoning vs gentrificati…

Absolutely moderation. I belong to scuba diving groups and they all have different rules on off-topicness. Join or start a group that strictly prohibits political or off-topic discussions.

One of the issues is sometimes when groups grow big enough the moderators start putting in sponsored posts. There is an incentive to "sell out" groups that are big enough. Other times they just become strangely political even if the group originally had nothing to do with politics. Like some people get bored of sticking to the topic after a few years, and decide to use their groups to push their opinions.

It's definitely different group to group though-- some people won't experience it and others are puzzled why the "so I herd u leik mudkips" meme group they joined 10 years ago is spreading antivax images.

Re: Facebook Execs Nixed Employees' Plan to Quell Hate Speech: Report

#76

Post by mdoms »

varispeed wrote: post #74
mdoms wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The next steps are you move on. Dwelling on a Facebook post for weeks is not healthy.

I am trying to establish whether indeed we are living in a two tier society, where laws mostly only apply to the poor.

Which laws?

Re: Facebook Execs Nixed Employees' Plan to Quell Hate Speech: Report

#77

Post by ryandrake »

david38 wrote: post #67
helen___keller wrote: post #8

> like a user who posted an image of a chimpanzee with the caption, "Here's one of Michelle Obama." Anecdotally, I’ve seen these sort of images shared across Facebook many times and it was a large part of a decision to step back my usage of the product around 2016, including having my account deactivated for several years This topic is commonly viewed in a political lens (free speech, etc) but I view it in a free mar…

Maybe you should follow different people. I fail to see how this is Facebook’s fault. Unfriend or unfollow people who don’t post what you want to see. Join groups you like. This is like blaming Netflix for a random show they showed you when you actively give them indications you would like it. All you have to do is add shows you want to your queue.

How does Facebook make the leap from "I am friends with Bob" to "I want to see inflammatory right-wing hate"?

Is it because Bob occasionally interacts with inflammatory right-wing hate?

Is it because Bob has second-order friends who like inflammatory right-wing hate?

Is it because Bob himself likes inflammatory right-wing hate?

Why should one have to change their friend list, simply to stop a social media algorithm from shoveling content that that person repeatedly expresses they don't like? Wouldn't it be better to just have a check-box: "I don't want to see right-wing hate" and have Facebook honor that, regardless of what the person's friends' activity is?

Re: Facebook Execs Nixed Employees' Plan to Quell Hate Speech: Report

#78

Post by locopati »

david38 wrote: post #66
mzs wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is something notable, that a conservative VP protected those users at the expense of more vulnerable ones again. >Kaplan, the company’s most influential Republican, was widely known as a strong believer in the idea that Facebook should appear “politically neutral,” and his hard-line free speech ideology was in lockstep with company CEO Mark Zuckerberg. (Facebook recently changed its corporate name to Meta.) He…

At the expense of vulnerable ones? You can literally use that sentence to quell any free speech just by saying I’m triggered. If your feelings are hurt, stop reading a particular platform. There are enough groups online you can isolate yourself from any opinion you don’t like.

that'd work except that the effects aren't limited to the platform - harmful information has realworld effects on people's material lives

Re: Facebook Execs Nixed Employees' Plan to Quell Hate Speech: Report

#79

Post by rayiner »

throwaway8582 wrote: post #41
rayiner wrote: post #14

> so that hate speech against Black, Jewish, LGBTQ , Muslim , and multiracial people would be taken down through an automated system And what happens when the system takes down quotes from the Quran--which Muslims believe to be not only the inspired, but perfect word of God--as "hate speech."

>> so that hate speech against Black, Jewish, LGBTQ, Muslim, and multiracial people would be taken down through an automated system What about hate speech against white people, or Christians? Have these groups been dehumanized to the point where that is just considered completely acceptable and uncontroversial now?

Considering hateful speech directed at white people to be outside the prohibition is similarly a reflection of the moral precepts of the people making the rules. To be more precise: when someone decries “white people” they’re not talking about people with white skin. They’re typically talking about people of a lower social class. “White people” are those white people whose education or profession doesn’t give them a different group to belong to.

As a “brown” person I think hateful speech directed at “white people” is offensive because so often it’s classist. But I don’t make the rules!

Re: Facebook Execs Nixed Employees' Plan to Quell Hate Speech: Report

#80

Post by rayiner »

verall wrote: post #40
rayiner wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which "people?" The secular descendants of white protestants--people who, despite maybe no longer being believers, retain distinctly protestant views of religious authority and interpretation? Yes. But certainly not, say, virtually all Muslims. I'm not disagreeing with the approach--I'm just pointing out that societies can't help but encode their religious and quasi-religious views onto putatively secular rules. What…

> the imam was narrating over passages from scripture to conform it to how Americans view things Or the imam had been influenced by American culture and was conforming it to their own views. I totally agree that people discount how much impact protestantism had/still has, but these views have been secularized and can thrive without any religious framework. It's all culture, basically; I don't think I'm disagreeing wi…

I agree the imam has been influenced by secular culture. But I’d argue the secular culture has been influenced by Protestantism.
Post reply on HN