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

The Facebook bubble just popped

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 225 posts

Re: The Facebook bubble just popped

#121

Post by helpfulanon »

A popular uprising against Silicon Valley is coming. Already I hear it from people in my life, all over the country.

They blame social media for allowing the Trump memes to warp people's opinion. They're starting to put the pieces together on unemployment and blame tech automation for taking jobs and not offering a replacement, especially in the heartland. They're angry with Silicon Valley execs for not putting up any visible fight against Trump. They're starting to see how clustering all the best paying jobs in major cities leaves people outside of the bubble desperate, seeing desperate solutions. A tidal wave of rage against the election is about to be directed towards the tech industry, it's just a matter of time.

Re: The Facebook bubble just popped

#122

Post by forgottenpass »

meritt wrote: post #101
misterbowfinger wrote: post #36

We're all definitely in an echo chamber. Hacker News is an echo chamber. So is Reddit, FB, Twitter, etc. This is what happens when, as an industry, we move towards "personalization". All of our "personalized" feeds allow businesses to increase their ad revenue, but it siphons us away from the rest of the world. 30 years ago, we were beholden to the large media outlets, which is also bad, but I believe we've overcorre…

HN is an echo chamber when it comes to tech choices, but it's absolutely not when it comes to politics. I've seen many pro-Trump supporters in the ranks here, which is very surprising given the demographic.

An echo chamber can include dissent and still be an echo chamber. In fact that's what keeps them alive long term.

Is the same 5 or 6 conversations over and over really any less of an echo chamber than 2 or 3?

Re: The Facebook bubble just popped

#123

Post by pluma »

protomyth wrote: post #55
maverick_iceman wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shy_Tory_Factor

Particularly nasty this time around with the amount of name calling and threats of violence[1]. I'm pretty sure any tech person who was for Trump shut the heck up after the whole Peter Thiel narrative. The amount of people who would rather act out than understand what is going on is a bit mind blowing. Of course, this is just a weird year when a third-party had a shot at the 5% and all of them sabotaged themselves by…

I'm not in the US and I was a bit taken aback when people on my Twitter timeline started calling for boycotts of a certain online sticker service entirely because the CEO came out on Twitter as supporting Trump a few weeks ago.

I've only seen this form of complete isolation as part of feminist "no platform"-ing (basically: actively excluding speakers because of their political views, regardless of the topic of the conference or occasion) before. But this time it wasn't simply about fringe extremists (e.g. racial supremacists) but about all supporters of the final candidate of one of the two major parties.

I hope this is the end of this practice rather than the start of something worse. Demonising half (or a third, depending on how you measure) the population is not how you fix social issues, especially if it desensitises people to slurs you will still need to label the real extremists.

Re: The Facebook bubble just popped

#124

Post by talmand »

ones_and_zeros wrote: post #69
pfortuny wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a federation of States, not a single State. Each one has its weight as State relative to the federation. So it is not "the people" who vote for the president. It is the people who vote whom their State will vote as president.

It is possible to win an election with only 22% of the popular vote. Have you seen this: http://www.cgpgrey.com/blog/the-trouble-with-the-electoral-c... Due to the way the electoral college gives small population states more electoral votes comparatively, votes in small population states have more weight.

Well, if the system is wrong how about we just change it so that each county in the country gets one vote? Win the county get the vote?

Re: The Facebook bubble just popped

#125

Post by pluma »

pmoriarty wrote: post #84
woodchuck64 wrote: post #15

Not just the left and right's echo-chambers, but those who attempt to actually listen to reality got it wrong, too: FiveThirtyEight for example has been using proven, reality-based statistics for a while and should have predicted this result. (As it was, Silver was lambasted for being too generous on Trump's chances.) At issue in this election is apparently a new idea: people who hold positions that are being publica…

"people who hold positions that are being publically shamed tend to lie to pollsters" Alternate theory: People did not lie to the pollsters -- but there was voting fraud, and Trump didn't win.

After HRC supporters have gone to such great lengths to explain how Trump's warnings about fraud were delusional and unrealistic, I would really love to hear a justification why Trump could have pulled this off when supposed Clinton couldn't have.

Re: The Facebook bubble just popped

#126

Post by webkike »

gipp wrote: post #107
webkike wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or maybe - just maybe - they report the news without opinion. Facebook injects opinion into everything by it's very nature. Maybe that's not a good thing.

There is no such thing. Even if only through the selection of events considered "newsworthy", reporting news _always_ implies a particular narrative of the world, and politics is nothing but competing narratives.

What if the articles printed are randomly selected from a pool? Additionally, I am talking about the content of the articles. News Papers for example already have opinion pieces so the paper as a whole cannot be unbiased. Additionally it is obvious that a news paper cannot print all of the news and to some extent that betrays a bias, but no one expects a single news source to contain all of the news in the entire world. My point is that articles themselves are often unbiased, and blanket treatment of media networks as biased is not a fair statement.

Re: The Facebook bubble just popped

#128

Post by Nadya »

zzalpha wrote: post #117
sickbeard wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't find that term offensive at all. To me it it means you believe in something and you're going to stand up for it.

Please. Let's all admit SJW has a clear, negative connotation. I mean, geez, it has a Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice_warrior is a pejorative term for an individual promoting socially progressive views,[1] including feminism,[1][2] civil rights,[1] multiculturalism,[1] and identity politics. Are you really going to claim that you weren't aware of this when you threw that term out there?

>Let's all admit SJW has a clear, negative connotation. I mean, geez, it has a Wikipedia page:

Many of them also own up to the term and use it to refer to themselves in a positive manner, even placing it in their Twitter bio's next to a link to their Patreon.

Anyone who actually spends any amount of time in the political sphere where SJW run rampant is aware of this. Someone like myself uses it with the full negative connotation implied, because every SJW I know is a self-centered narcissist. But go ask the Twittersphere SJW's if they identify as a SJW and many will say yes. They see nothing wrong with it at all, after all they're in the right. They claim the moral high ground so how could being a SJW be a bad thing? "Oh, you're calling me a not-racist, not-sexist, not-misogynist? How is that a bad thing again?"

Anyone who is distanced from that political sphere but might know some college-aged SJW crowd could easily see and use it as a "positive phrase".

Re: The Facebook bubble just popped

#129

Post by talmand »

thewhitetulip wrote: post #46
sickbeard wrote: post #12

Not to mention realclearpolitics and projectthirtyfive all had poll after poll with all the number crunching data saying Clinton would win. In the end.. clinton: 59,938,290 votes trump: 59,704,886 votes 59million liked all new age sjw stuff 59million other people didn't

I find the electoral system in US to be funny. When 47.7% people voted for Hillary and 47.5 voted from Donald, yet Donald won. This is for the second time that Dems have lost this way, the last time was during Al Gore vs Bush

Considering the number of times the electoral college and the popular vote agreed then it would seem the system works fairly well. It's not like no one knows the rules going in, they've been in place for a while now.

Re: The Facebook bubble just popped

#130

Post by AcerbicZero »

gdulli wrote: post #115
downandout wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tom Brokaw was especially insulting to the half of the country that voted for Trump. After several comments about uneducated rednecks causing the downfall of our nation, he summed it up this way: "This election was much more about ‘Duck Dynasty’ than ‘Saturday Night Live’." Hell hath no fury like an elite liberal scorned.

That Trump won in large part due to disproportionate support from voters without a college degree is a plain fact worth being reported. Reading insult into it is discretionary.

I think the issue is more with the false equivalency presented by some journalists. A college degree or lack there of, does not automatically denote greater or lesser intelligence.
Post reply on HN