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

Whistleblower tells senators that Meta undermined U.S. security, interests

thehill.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 135 posts

Re: Whistleblower tells senators that Meta undermined U.S. security, interests

#101

Post by ativzzz »

egberts1 wrote: post #49
walleeee wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Freedom and personal liberty actually are ideologies. Feyerabend in particular would likely differ, and say instead that freedom and liberty are what emerge when mature adults democratically order their societies, irrespective (or in spite) of any ideologies used to bind them

Yes Paul Feyerabend, a philosopher of science, argued that true freedom and liberty arise when individuals actively and democratically shape their societies, free from the dominance of any single ideology, including science. He contended that science, often regarded as the ultimate path to knowledge, is merely one of many traditions and should not hold a privileged position in society. Feyerabend advocated for a “dem…

> He believed that this approach would allow individuals to live according to their own values and beliefs

What if someone's values and beliefs are that certain other values and beliefs should not be allowed? Like what if a group believes that gay people shouldn't exist openly in society, or that certain racial groups should be genocided or stripped of their rights?

I think this is a fundamental issue of tolerance of beliefs - how do you tolerate intolerant beliefs without sliding into intolerance yourself?

Re: Whistleblower tells senators that Meta undermined U.S. security, interests

#102

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

"Hawley, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Crime and Counterterrorism Subcommittee, said that Meta or Facebook tried "desperately to prevent" him from holding the hearing.

"They have threatened her with $50,000 in punitive damages every time she mentions Facebook in public ... even if the statements she is making are true," he said. "Facebook is attempting her total and complete financial ruin. They're attempting to destroy her personally, they're attempting to destroy her reputation and I think the question is, `Why?'"

"What is it they are so afraid of?" Hawley asked.""

Meta has a stellar reputation to protect. Honest people doing honest "work".

Re: Whistleblower tells senators that Meta undermined U.S. security, interests

#103

Post by imiric »

Hojojo wrote: post #75
imiric wrote: post #73

A whistleblower is not required to determine that Meta, and all adtech companies, have been severely damaging not just to the US, but to all governments and societies where these platforms are used. They don't need to collude with any adversarial government for this to be true. The same tools built to manipulate people into buying things, are used to manipulate them into thinking and acting in ways that could be bene…

Honestly, it's crazy that any country allows online media to control the national discourse about politics without having any insight into how the algorithms decide what kind of content is shown to whom and how content is moderated or controlled. Then there's bot/propaganda accounts run by who knows who poisoning any political discussion.

A valid solution is, of course, authoritarian levels of control over all media outlets. This puts countries like China and Russia at an advantage in this case.

Since most western citizens would object to this, surely middle ground solutions can be found that would prevent abuse and foreign (and domestic) manipulation, while preserving democracy, free speech and individual freedoms. I'm inclined to believe that democracy and authoritarianism doesn't have to be zero-sum, and that a balance can exist that allows societies to prosper even among hostile actors.

Re: Whistleblower tells senators that Meta undermined U.S. security, interests

#104

Post by 01HNNWZ0MV43FF »

throw1222212121 wrote: post #79
Hojojo wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, it's crazy that any country allows online media to control the national discourse about politics without having any insight into how the algorithms decide what kind of content is shown to whom and how content is moderated or controlled. Then there's bot/propaganda accounts run by who knows who poisoning any political discussion.

"To save the public from propaganda, we must implement national controls on all political media dissemination"

"everyone is smart enough to not be fooled by a firehose of addictive misinformation"

You can tell how smart everyone is by looking at our excellent voter turnout, especially in local elections

Re: Whistleblower tells senators that Meta undermined U.S. security, interests

#105

Post by DrScientist »

imiric wrote: post #73

A whistleblower is not required to determine that Meta, and all adtech companies, have been severely damaging not just to the US, but to all governments and societies where these platforms are used. They don't need to collude with any adversarial government for this to be true. The same tools built to manipulate people into buying things, are used to manipulate them into thinking and acting in ways that could be bene…

On the other hand these tools do allow individuals to connect and share.

I see it like politics ( at least the way it's managed in the UK ) - democracy means everyone get's to vote, leaflet door to door, politically organise etc. However there are ( in the non-online space ) strict regulations about money not being able to buy a larger voice - political spending is(was) strictly limited. You can't use broadcast media for political ads, apart from the government allocated slots.....

The regulations haven't kept up with the digital world - but they need to. Looking at what unfettered money has done to US politics is all the incentive you need.

One of the core problems is astroturfing is so easy online - money pretending to be people - in the end, I think the only solution is the loss of anonymity online - anonymity enables sock puppetry and astroturfing.

ie if we want to keep people's freedoms online to say what they want ( but within the law ), but at the same time stop money drowning out all voices, then you have to know what's automated and what's real - and people need to be held accountable for what they say or do - that's how the real world works.

You don't need authoritarian laws regulating content - social peer pressure is quite effective - after all democracy is the tyranny of the majority.

Re: Whistleblower tells senators that Meta undermined U.S. security, interests

#106

Post by jgalt212 »

emchammer wrote: post #89
rayiner wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s amusing that the right used to complain about “information warfare”—Marxist infiltration of universities, newspapers, and Hollywood—while now the left does so.

I don't think that it's a left/right thing. There was a link that appeared here yesterday for a book newly released on Project Gutenberg called Masters of Deception. I went to the library to get a hard copy as it was originally published in 1958. I never thought that I would be agreeing with J Edgar Hoover so much. This is no longer just about Communism.

I'm starting to think very few things are left / right. People pick a team or tribe and stick with it regardless of what a dispassionate analysis of their team's positions actual mean to one's own conscience, values, objective function, whathaveyou.

Re: Whistleblower tells senators that Meta undermined U.S. security, interests

#107

Post by vasac »

Hojojo wrote: post #75
imiric wrote: post #73

A whistleblower is not required to determine that Meta, and all adtech companies, have been severely damaging not just to the US, but to all governments and societies where these platforms are used. They don't need to collude with any adversarial government for this to be true. The same tools built to manipulate people into buying things, are used to manipulate them into thinking and acting in ways that could be bene…

Honestly, it's crazy that any country allows online media to control the national discourse about politics without having any insight into how the algorithms decide what kind of content is shown to whom and how content is moderated or controlled. Then there's bot/propaganda accounts run by who knows who poisoning any political discussion.

And only ten years ago, during the Arab Spring, social networks were praised for their role.

Wondering what has changed in the meantime.

Re: Whistleblower tells senators that Meta undermined U.S. security, interests

#108

Post by freehorse »

DrScientist wrote: post #105
imiric wrote: post #73

A whistleblower is not required to determine that Meta, and all adtech companies, have been severely damaging not just to the US, but to all governments and societies where these platforms are used. They don't need to collude with any adversarial government for this to be true. The same tools built to manipulate people into buying things, are used to manipulate them into thinking and acting in ways that could be bene…

On the other hand these tools do allow individuals to connect and share. I see it like politics ( at least the way it's managed in the UK ) - democracy means everyone get's to vote, leaflet door to door, politically organise etc. However there are ( in the non-online space ) strict regulations about money not being able to buy a larger voice - political spending is(was) strictly limited. You can't use broadcast media…

Blogging platforms also allow people to connect and share, but are prob less profitable. A lot of the role of blogs was taken over by social media, this created larger networks but with a lot of downsides. But these downsides are not inherent to all the online platforms where people can connect and share.

Re: Whistleblower tells senators that Meta undermined U.S. security, interests

#109

Post by Clubber »

freehorse wrote: post #108
DrScientist wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand these tools do allow individuals to connect and share. I see it like politics ( at least the way it's managed in the UK ) - democracy means everyone get's to vote, leaflet door to door, politically organise etc. However there are ( in the non-online space ) strict regulations about money not being able to buy a larger voice - political spending is(was) strictly limited. You can't use broadcast media…

Blogging platforms also allow people to connect and share, but are prob less profitable. A lot of the role of blogs was taken over by social media, this created larger networks but with a lot of downsides. But these downsides are not inherent to all the online platforms where people can connect and share.

Blogging is typically unidirectional, like TV or radio. You get to hear what someone says, but unless they turn on comments and actually read them, you don't get to have a conversation.

Re: Whistleblower tells senators that Meta undermined U.S. security, interests

#110

Post by mrguyorama »

rayiner wrote: post #88
imiric wrote: post #73

A whistleblower is not required to determine that Meta, and all adtech companies, have been severely damaging not just to the US, but to all governments and societies where these platforms are used. They don't need to collude with any adversarial government for this to be true. The same tools built to manipulate people into buying things, are used to manipulate them into thinking and acting in ways that could be bene…

It’s amusing that the right used to complain about “information warfare”—Marxist infiltration of universities, newspapers, and Hollywood—while now the left does so.

"""Used to"""
Post reply on HN