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

We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

the.ink

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 520 posts

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#121

Post by bondarchuk »

gjulianm wrote: post #100
bondarchuk wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> industrial-scale disinformation campaigns manipulating public opinion and discrediting every single thing you can imagine This is just a fancy way of saying "people saying things I don't like". > grinding the free exchange of ideas to a halt at every turn. How so? Like GP said, you can just not use facebook and freely exchange ideas with your peers through other channels. Sure, some of your peers might have a diffe…

> This is just a fancy way of saying "people saying things I don't like" Not just "I don't like", but things that "aren't true". There's a difference, and it's important. > How so? Like GP said, you can just not use facebook and freely exchange ideas with your peers through other channels. The how is that the constant exposure to lies makes people doubt everything. A lie is easy to fabricate, will create controversy,…

>That's how you end up with what you have now: people living in completely different realities because the things that spread the most are lies.

If we would put restrictions on social media and let the big media companies decide what is "consensus reality" like they are so vehemently arguing for, then everybody would also be living in a fake reality, the only difference is that it would be the same for everyone, which might obscure the fakeness for a while. I agree it's a difficult subject but I genuinely think the current situation is at least a little bit better.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#122

Post by CPLX »

blisterpeanuts wrote: post #115

In an earlier era, people's opinions were shaped by a small number of newspapers and newscasts. Some of these old media were so biased and agenda driven that they caused wars. Not that much has changed, except that people now rely on centralized, AI-driven funnels of information and entertainment. Democracy has always been fragile, barely functional, easily corrupted, warped by money. The best and only way to defend…

> a small number

That's not correct. There were staggering numbers of them. In 1900 there were 15 English language daily newspapers in New York City alone.

The problem with Facebook is monopolization. It's different when you have a ton of places that share information, and some of them are biased in one direction or another, versus when you have just one, and that one actively works to prevent other options from emerging.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#123

Post by ceilingcorner »

People complaining about this issue don't seem to understand how the Internet works. Facebook is not the Internet and restricting "hate speech" (a notoriously vague concept) will only result in people going elsewhere. There is no universe where the average person goes back to thinking CNN/NYT is the sole arbiter of news. Period. The only way to ensure such a scenario would make the Soviet Union blush.

These are technological realities. You can continue to lament them, or you can accept networked information as inevitable and start dealing with your new reality.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#124

Post by blisterpeanuts »

jordanbeiber wrote: post #84
refurb wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s an assault rifle? A normal rifle with features that scared people but have no impact on the actual lethality?

A specific compact form-factor and multiple rounds in a magazine that allow for more rapid fire than a bolt action rifle? I know people claim "hunting" with these rifles, but I think there's a shiny toy thing at play more than utility.

No, you're describing a semi-automatic weapon, which requires a separate trigger pull for each shot.

Fully automatic allows multiple shots with one pull of the trigger.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#125

Post by exdsq »

m12k wrote: post #119
exdsq wrote: post #3

How can freedom of speech be the downfall of democracy? Surely Facebook and democracy can coexist if we get better at teaching people to think for themselves? I don’t like the idea democracy can only survive if governments censor and remove platforms for spreading information (however false that may be).

The problem isn't free speech in itself. The problem is the amplification of that speech by algorithms optimizing for "engagement" which practically speaking ends up being synonymous with "conflict". The medium lends itself to spreading bullshit and outrage, not quiet reflection, empathy and 'thinking for yourself'. Lies simply scale better than truth, outrage scales better than understanding and clickbait scales bet…

Sure, but is the internet to blame then? Everyone ends up in their own echo chamber, even us on HN right? And the media have been doing this for decades too... Maybe not to this level but I find it hard to believe democracy is that brittle, and I worry the narrative to remove sources of sharing info freely is actually anti-democratic (all news coming from 'authorised sources' at its most extreme).

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#126

Post by BrianOnHN »

blisterpeanuts wrote: post #82
BrianOnHN wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the local "gun show." It's advertised on billboards all along the highway. No background check required!

Fully automatic military assault weapons? I don't think so.

Welcome to FL USA

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#127

Post by bovermyer »

blisterpeanuts wrote: post #115

In an earlier era, people's opinions were shaped by a small number of newspapers and newscasts. Some of these old media were so biased and agenda driven that they caused wars. Not that much has changed, except that people now rely on centralized, AI-driven funnels of information and entertainment. Democracy has always been fragile, barely functional, easily corrupted, warped by money. The best and only way to defend…

A very interesting story about democracy and its evolution is in Estonia's history.

Estonia in the early 20th century had one of the highest literacy rates in the world. When it first won independence around 1920, it formed a parliamentary democracy based on a constitution. A little while later, one party took over, and a new constitution was written that was much more authoritarian. The same leadership a little while later than that wrote another new constitution that was halfway between the first and second constitutions in terms of mix of democracy and authoritarianism.

Then the Soviets invaded, and democracy vanished until the early 1990s. At that time they regained independence and created their present government.

This is a huge oversimplification, but the four separate constitutions and the evolution of the Estonian system is fascinating.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#128

Post by adnzzzzZ »

gjulianm wrote: post #100
bondarchuk wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> industrial-scale disinformation campaigns manipulating public opinion and discrediting every single thing you can imagine This is just a fancy way of saying "people saying things I don't like". > grinding the free exchange of ideas to a halt at every turn. How so? Like GP said, you can just not use facebook and freely exchange ideas with your peers through other channels. Sure, some of your peers might have a diffe…

> This is just a fancy way of saying "people saying things I don't like" Not just "I don't like", but things that "aren't true". There's a difference, and it's important. > How so? Like GP said, you can just not use facebook and freely exchange ideas with your peers through other channels. The how is that the constant exposure to lies makes people doubt everything. A lie is easy to fabricate, will create controversy,…

Maybe people wouldn't so easily believe in alternative narratives if people in power didn't also lie all the time? No one believes in the media anymore for a reason. People don't believe in scientists anymore for a reason. People don't believe in most government officials anymore for a reason.

You can find many examples of continued and relentless lies from all these classes of people over the years and decades. Is it really a surprise that people will stop listening to them?

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#129

Post by lldbg »

gjulianm wrote: post #100
bondarchuk wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> industrial-scale disinformation campaigns manipulating public opinion and discrediting every single thing you can imagine This is just a fancy way of saying "people saying things I don't like". > grinding the free exchange of ideas to a halt at every turn. How so? Like GP said, you can just not use facebook and freely exchange ideas with your peers through other channels. Sure, some of your peers might have a diffe…

> This is just a fancy way of saying "people saying things I don't like" Not just "I don't like", but things that "aren't true". There's a difference, and it's important. > How so? Like GP said, you can just not use facebook and freely exchange ideas with your peers through other channels. The how is that the constant exposure to lies makes people doubt everything. A lie is easy to fabricate, will create controversy,…

Maybe you are the one who has been constantly exposed to lies, and doubt everything that is true?

The only way you can have a free exchange of ideas is if people are allowed to disagree, and yes this includes basic "facts" of reality.

You think speech should be censured, removed, and controlled? Okay, your speech first.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#130

Post by ceilingcorner »

waihtis wrote: post #4

Does anyone actually enjoy this kind of writing style where the author constantly blows their own trumpet? The introductionary text is borderline satire.

Journalists tend to have an over-inflated sense of self-importance. They even created an entire section of society for themselves ("The Fourth Estate") because being a commoner wasn't good enough.

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

Post reply on HN