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

Facebook bans Holocaust film for violating race policy

rollingstone.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–407 of 407 posts

Re: Facebook bans Holocaust film for violating race policy

#401

Post by illuminerdy »

RajT88 wrote: post #296
illuminerdy wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "...it purported to be a sober view of history, well cited and no name calling. Literally none of the references were to anything real; it was all fabricated bullshit trying to push the reader to a particular conclusion (Jews are bad)." But the problem is that censorship assumes that you are too stupid to come to that conclusion yourself and must be protected from the "misinformation". It also robs the marketplace…

Companies have the right to handle this issue however they wish. Generations of politicians have ensured it, at least in the US. That's just how it is. With regards to: > But the problem is that censorship assumes that you are too stupid to come to that conclusion yourself and must be protected from the "misinformation". > It also robs the marketplace of the ability to hear the legitimate criticisms and the opportuni…

> "Companies have the right to handle this issue however they wish."

But that's precisely the problem these days. We have seen recently that the government has been colluding with the tech companies to censor content that they deem "misinformation" and individuals whom they deem "problematic". It's no longer just about a private company deciding what they will or will not allow on their platform.

https://nypost.com/2022/09/01/white-house-big-tech-colluded-...

> "Do you think the public on the first count, and the marketplace on the second count are doing a particularly admirable job here?"

It's not about whether the "group" is coming to the decision or conclusion that you or I would like them to reach. It's about whether we, as individuals, have the right to view the totality of the evidence and arguments and then make up our own minds.

Some people see through the bullshit and some don't. That's the nature of humanity. And, to be fair, what you and I might think is bullshit might turn out to actually be completely the opposite. We're not infallible. But the fact that any of us might make mistakes in judgement or analysis is not a valid reason to prevent unpopular or unverified (or however you want to label it) information from being disseminated or accessed.

Re: Facebook bans Holocaust film for violating race policy

#402

Post by RajT88 »

illuminerdy wrote: post #401
RajT88 wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Companies have the right to handle this issue however they wish. Generations of politicians have ensured it, at least in the US. That's just how it is. With regards to: > But the problem is that censorship assumes that you are too stupid to come to that conclusion yourself and must be protected from the "misinformation". > It also robs the marketplace of the ability to hear the legitimate criticisms and the opportuni…

> "Companies have the right to handle this issue however they wish." But that's precisely the problem these days. We have seen recently that the government has been colluding with the tech companies to censor content that they deem "misinformation" and individuals whom they deem "problematic". It's no longer just about a private company deciding what they will or will not allow on their platform. https://nypost.com/2…

Nobody has a right to see all information in the world. Free speech is an ideal, not a right.

The first amendment just ensures the government cannot punish you for what you say.

If you are arguing for implementing that ideal, well and good. I disagree that in our current media ecosystem that that is a good idea. But I cannot fault you for advocating for an ideal.

If you are suggesting the public has a right to see all content on a platform without any moderation, you are wrong. No such right is enshrined in US law.

Re: Facebook bans Holocaust film for violating race policy

#403

Post by midoridensha »

triceratops wrote: post #297
logicalmonster wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is that really true? That's sort of the joke. It's another way of saying "the victors write the history books"

I understand the joke and I know the victors write the history books, by virtue of being alive. But they don't always make themselves look like the good guys in those history books.

>But they don't always make themselves look like the good guys in those history books.

Of course they do. Do you have any examples to the contrary?

Many times, their distant ancestors look back and realize their actions were poor, and revise the history books, but that usually takes generations at least.

Re: Facebook bans Holocaust film for violating race policy

#404

Post by nobody9999 »

sidewndr46 wrote: post #400
nobody9999 wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment doesn't reflect anything I wrote, nor does it even reflect the ideas underlying what I wrote. So I'm still not clear what chain of reasoning you're using here. I'll recap my statements to make sure I'm being clear. You said: >Your argument is that "Republican governors" could follow the processes of the government to somehow influence an election. I don't even think what you're describing is possible. Th…

Your complete original statement was "causing various states to (disingenuously) disagree about how to replace the lost documents" If "various states" happen to "disagree" then it has to be a statement issued by the governors and legislature of those states. The members of Congress are most definitely not "the states". They are popularly elected nowadays and are not selected by the Governor or by the legislature of t…

>Your complete original statement was "causing various states to (disingenuously) disagree about how to replace the lost documents"

I said no such thing. It was this comment:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32865748

that contains that information.

Note that I (https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=nobody9999) am not the author of that comment.

It was, in fact, a user called dane-pgp (https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=dane-pgp) who wrote that.

But you (apparently) ignored the rest of his comment which describes the 12th amendment process for the House to elect the President.

So. Let's sum up here:

1. You disagree with someone (dane-pgp) and yell incoherently at someone else (Nobody9999);

2. When that someone else explains, in great detail, to make sure you understand their point, you produce further incoherent ramblings;

3. You continue to rant incoherently with no apparent regard for the law or the constitutuion.

Good show. Catch you on the flip side, although I hope not.

Re: Facebook bans Holocaust film for violating race policy

#406

Post by redeeman »

swayvil wrote: post #327
root_axis wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are enough token anecdotes of companies doing background checks on social media, and will actively flag individuals for having zero presence. I'm sure it happens, but I don't believe that to be a real issue since using the presence of a social media account as a filtering tool for hiring is obviously ridiculous, and as someone who has done a lot of hiring, it's completely absurd to imagine we'd ever turn away…

You haven't thought about peer pressure enough. It's got depths. "You must do this thing" evolves into "you must support this thing" and then into "absence of support is equivalent to nonsupport (antisupport... whatever)". And in social media this evolution is fast.

and this is where people must

1: reach their arms around and feel in the middle of the back 2: arch a bit back and fourth 3: realize they have a spine 4: say "i dont give a shit if you are in facebook or twatter or whatever, I am not. Deal with it."

Re: Facebook bans Holocaust film for violating race policy

#407

Post by lvxferre »

z9znz wrote: post #244
lvxferre wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Is the review not human? Do they run it through the same algorithm a second time? Do they lie about the review? Yes, yes, and yes. There's a context-illiterate AI deciding what you can say or not, even if the later heavily depends on context. And just like it'll trigger a bazillion of false positives, it'll also trigger a bazillion of false negatives; someone can easily spread hate through Facebook, unimpeded, by si…

I think the algorithms are just minimum standard efforts which provide enough plausible deniability for FB to be able to argue that they provide safeguards on bad content.

Pretty much.

People don't often realise, but users are a resource just like any other. And if a resource is abundant, you'll often sacrifice a bit of that for the sake of something else.

So... sure, bad content (false negatives) and being handled unfairly (false positives) sours users, prompting them to leave the platform. And both things are bound to happen, if you put an algorithm reviewing stuff instead of a person. But since there are so many users, Facebook is better off doing this crap than actually spending money by hiring enough people to actually review the reports, checking the context to decide if they apply or not.

And you'll see other businesses doing exactly the same decision; that's why, for example, Reddit became such a shithole, and people outright complain about the Anti-Evil Operations all the time. Twitter is likely the same, dunno. And it shows that we cannot and we should not rely on mass social media, we should be sticking to smaller alternatives.[/soapbox]

Post reply on HN