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

Controversial creators are benefiting from monetization programs run by Meta

abc.net.au

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 381 posts

Re: Controversial creators are benefiting from monetization programs run by Meta

#351

Post by wpietri »

AlexandrB wrote: post #265
wpietri wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone has the moral obligation to not enable or profit from harm. Do we all live up perfectly to that all the time? No. There's no meaningful moral rule where people can do that. If there were, it wouldn't be worth having as a moral rule. Is Zuckerberg responsible for the harm he's causing? Yes. Are the workers enabling that responsible? Yes. Are the people who profit from indirectly supporting that responsible? Y…

"Harm" is a mushy term that means everything and nothing. There are many competing definitions of "harm" based on one's cultural, religious, and philosophical priors. So what kind of harm are you talking about exactly?

That any particular thing is harmful can be a worthwhile discussion, one that has been going on for centuries and will continue for centuries more. The notion that nothing is harmful is idiotic, so I presume you're not claiming that. As long as we agree that harm to others exists, my point stands. If you'd like the details, I suggest you consult said centuries of dialog. But in practice, it's pretty clear that people can and do come to useful decisions on the nature of harm all the time.

Re: Controversial creators are benefiting from monetization programs run by Meta

#352

Post by holbrad »

bobthepanda wrote: post #305
directevolve wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a US citizen who takes our country’s free speech norms seriously, I don’t think Meta should be aiming to deplatform even the hateful content I vehemently disagree with. I think government should work more on helping people find alternatives to social media. The “town square effect” that makes people feel forced to use these apps is real and pernicious. That feels like a better target for regulation and taxation th…

I think there is a distinct difference between deplatforming content, and simply not monetizing it. You have the right to shout in the town square but I do not have to put money in your cup when you do it.

I think that's an incredibly dangerous slippery slope.

If you effectively control what is monetised, you effectively control what is said en masse. It's a distinction without a difference.

Re: Controversial creators are benefiting from monetization programs run by Meta

#353

Post by phendrenad2 »

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #67
phendrenad2 wrote: post #25

People want to feel like they're doing something in the "culture war". Rage-bait gives them an outlet. Facebook might be saving us from total civil war here.

Rage-bait invented the "culture war" you're talking about.

You are technically correct, which is the best kind of correct.

Re: Controversial creators are benefiting from monetization programs run by Meta

#354

Post by slopinthebag »

datsci_est_2015 wrote: post #297
mattlondon wrote: post #63

I think this is a bit misleading. It sounds to me like the creators are creating and uploading the content, and then that is getting monetised on the platform? The title makes it sound like meta is commissioning the content? I don't think that is the case here? Or is it? Directly commissioning someone to create it is pretty wild.

“Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?” — “I didn’t directly tell them to make white nationalist content, I just paid them for being an engaging content creator.” — Hope that we get to a point as a society that we acknowledge that companies can and should be held liable for inevitable second-order effects of the decisions they make and strategies they adopt. It certainly applies to personal liability, e.g. man…

Would this mean holding the content creators liable for their speech? You’d need to abolish the first amendment to do this.

Re: Controversial creators are benefiting from monetization programs run by Meta

#355

Post by scarab92 »

bobthepanda wrote: post #305
directevolve wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a US citizen who takes our country’s free speech norms seriously, I don’t think Meta should be aiming to deplatform even the hateful content I vehemently disagree with. I think government should work more on helping people find alternatives to social media. The “town square effect” that makes people feel forced to use these apps is real and pernicious. That feels like a better target for regulation and taxation th…

I think there is a distinct difference between deplatforming content, and simply not monetizing it. You have the right to shout in the town square but I do not have to put money in your cup when you do it.

I find those advocating for censorship of right wing voices to be pretty unconvincing, and often acting in bad faith (like this article and its cherry picking)

Reddit and Blue Sky are almost entirely left-wing rage-bait and conspiracy theory content these days, and they amplify such content right to the top of the default feed, yet you rarely see the right calling for these platforms to censor their users.

If the right can learn to tolerate different opinions that they find offensive, then it’s reasonable to expect the left to do so as well, without resorting to these contrived cancel culture talking points.

The vast majority of political violence and riots in the US these days is orchestrated by left-wing movements and individuals. The assassinations of Brian Thompson, Charlie Kirk the attempts on Trump, all the riots surrounding BLM and George Floyd etc

Obviously directly inciting violence is not acceptable, but cherry picking obscure instances of it, while simultaneously overlooking the far larger problems that exist on the left, is bad faith. The threads celebrating the murders of Brian Thompson and Charlie Kirk are some of the most shared Reddit posts of all time, with zero self-reflection from the left about this double standard.

Re: Controversial creators are benefiting from monetization programs run by Meta

#356

Post by JKCalhoun »

mattlondon wrote: post #63

I think this is a bit misleading. It sounds to me like the creators are creating and uploading the content, and then that is getting monetised on the platform? The title makes it sound like meta is commissioning the content? I don't think that is the case here? Or is it? Directly commissioning someone to create it is pretty wild.

A distinction without a difference?

Re: Controversial creators are benefiting from monetization programs run by Meta

#357

Post by Ey7NFZ3P0nzAe »

shimman wrote: post #325
inigyou wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Instagram on Android was caught bypassing OS security requirements by opening a port on localhost, which webpages with Facebook tracking scripts would connect to to get your identity.

Link to this? Haven't heard of it.

IIRC it's related to this stuff reported on by fern: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOQynHuWPeI

Re: Controversial creators are benefiting from monetization programs run by Meta

#359

Post by bilekas »

iamnothere wrote: post #255
bilekas wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because people really don’t like it when you attempt to police their individual political speech I'm not sure that I buy that when people's health are at stake. When things are objectively false, and spreading that information will actively harm people, you have a responsibility and duty of care to point out falsities. But that's just me.

It isn’t just you, but it also isn’t everybody. Dissent is always present, and the 1st amendment ensures that people have the right to speak their mind. Having the government lean on private platforms to pressure them into censorship, especially in a coordinated fashion, violates that right. Even if the government attempts to launder that pressure through a maze of domestic and foreign NGOs.

I'm not from the U.S so I'll only say that the 1st amendment doesn't apply here, the government is not going to arrest people for sharing false information. The government has a responsibility to its citizens and so should act in the interests of their safety.

> Having the government lean on private platforms to pressure them into censorship, especially in a coordinated fashion, violates that right.

Even as a non US, this isn't true. A private company can decide to ban you for whatever reason they like. If they align with government health experts or not. It has nothing to do with your first amendment. It WOULD violate your rights if they arrested you for it.

Re: Controversial creators are benefiting from monetization programs run by Meta

#360

Post by veeti »

bilekas wrote: post #150
iamnothere wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

COVID-era “fact checking” went way beyond its remit and started to become a political tool. This had negative consequences for the average person’s trust in institutions of all kinds, because people really don’t like it when you attempt to police their individual political speech, even if it’s clearly inaccurate (as it so often is). It’s a good thing that it was removed. The problem with Meta is the monetization and…

> because people really don’t like it when you attempt to police their individual political speech I'm not sure that I buy that when people's health are at stake. When things are objectively false, and spreading that information will actively harm people, you have a responsibility and duty of care to point out falsities. But that's just me.

The same argument can be made for many Facebook products, such as end to end encryption in WhatsApp. When children's lives are at stake, right?
Post reply on HN