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

Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 236 posts

Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks

#141

Post by zaroth »

amelius wrote: post #106
Yoric wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, many believe that "big tech" (social networks and search engine, I'd say) have essentially replaced traditional news networks. I don't have a clear opinion on this yet, but if that's the case, it makes sense to regulate "big tech" in the same manner as traditional news.

Yes, and big tech should similarly be regulated like traditional telecommunications, where subscribers of telco A can call subscribers of telco B without problems (unlike most chat services).

This seems like a terrible idea which would merely entrench monopolies further.

Phone number interoperability was to establish an unbranded phone network that could be serviced by any telco. Making every service deliver messages to and from Facebook would be an absolute nightmare.

Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks

#142

Post by m0zg »

Established, "old media" news sources routinely spread misinformation as well either deliberately made up, or by omitting facts that don't fit the narrative of their owners. News outlets haven't been about "news" for several decades now, it's all about, to quote Chomsky, "manufacturing consent". It's just that now anyone with a webcam and a video editor can do the same thing on social media. Some, in fact, get more viewers than "traditional" media, too.

Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks

#143

Post by vuln »

golergka wrote: post #134
thrusong wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Nancy Pelosi videos tread on propaganda. It's being used to convince people "Wacky Nancy" or whatever Trump calls her is not fit for office, using actual news clips. It's clearly different from parody provided by a comedian on a show known for being a sketch comedy show.

I think that you're right in that statement, but I also think that this is an editorial decision, not a technological one. If Facebook takes it upon itself to make such a decision, then it acts as an editor of it's users content and should be liable as an editor. Not as a communication platform.

Facebook curates and removes content all of the time. They are 100% an editor and should have their safe harbor revoked as they can and do control what is posted on their platform.

Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks

#144

Post by amelius »

zaroth wrote: post #141
amelius wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and big tech should similarly be regulated like traditional telecommunications, where subscribers of telco A can call subscribers of telco B without problems (unlike most chat services).

This seems like a terrible idea which would merely entrench monopolies further. Phone number interoperability was to establish an unbranded phone network that could be serviced by any telco. Making every service deliver messages to and from Facebook would be an absolute nightmare.

Why would every message need to end up on Facebook?

Perhaps you should think of it more as e.g. e-mail.

Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks

#145

Post by beaned »

friggeri wrote: post #18

I'm very uncomfortable with the current trend of trying to get big tech to self police. They'll never get it right because of moving goal posts and moreover I don't want a private company to have that power in shaping social discourse. If we as a society deem that type of content to be improper and that it should not be allowed on such platforms, then let's make that explicit from a legal perspective and regulate the…

Also the internet has always been this way and it's never been a problem. It was only once Trump was elected that the media started to promote the idea of censorship.

Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks

#146

Post by gingabriska »

amelius wrote: post #144
zaroth wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems like a terrible idea which would merely entrench monopolies further. Phone number interoperability was to establish an unbranded phone network that could be serviced by any telco. Making every service deliver messages to and from Facebook would be an absolute nightmare.

Why would every message need to end up on Facebook? Perhaps you should think of it more as e.g. e-mail.

Economies of scale. Whoever can do it cheaper and at scale gets the job.

Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks

#147

Post by kaibee »

amelius wrote: post #109
scotu wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The algorithm is probably the biggest element of it, they are already deciding what you are going to see and what you'll not see, so they put themself in the position of being a lot like an editor. On top of that a phone call and an sms are 1 to few (mostly 1 to 1), facebook posts are 1 to many, this makes the damage exponentially greater...

Yeah, but a personal Wordpress website also is 1-to-many. Where will this end?

Facebook is a monopoly. There is an impossible inertia to starting a Facebook competitor because they have the network effect on their side (not to mention the money). Their monopoly is basically the same as rail monopolies, only on the social connections between people. As another user said here, they should be required to provide basic interoperability between competing social networks and to be able to transfer your account and data to a competitor. Kind of like a Federalized model. Then Facebook would have to compete on features, not simply relying on the monopoly of "this is where all of my friends are". AT&T is required to interoperate with T-Mobile, etc. The same should be true for Facebook. Trying to equate Facebook and a single WordPress site is just a slippery slope fallacy.

Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks

#148

Post by MereInterest »

zaroth wrote: post #141
amelius wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and big tech should similarly be regulated like traditional telecommunications, where subscribers of telco A can call subscribers of telco B without problems (unlike most chat services).

This seems like a terrible idea which would merely entrench monopolies further. Phone number interoperability was to establish an unbranded phone network that could be serviced by any telco. Making every service deliver messages to and from Facebook would be an absolute nightmare.

How would requiring use of an open API entrench a monopoly? If I could send messages from IRC to Facebook, that would be one less reason to have a Facebook account.

Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks

#149

Post by mc32 »

kpU8efre7r wrote: post #136
mc32 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Especially with regard to politicians, regulating speech in this area like that video treads right on parody. Do they ban SNL impersonations too, Latenight TV mashups? No more Dana Carvey or Alec Baldwin and Tina Fey. Is that what they want?

Does Alec Baldwin ever try to pass as actual Donald Trump or is it obvious that it's parody? The Pelosi video was made with the malicious intent to deceive.

Some latenight hosts have done mashups. Not just skits.

Would labeling this on FB as parody be sufficient? Should raw footage be labeled as such. What about taking quotes out of context?

What about news which edits and editorializes? What about political campaigns which either only pull out the bad on an opponent and only highlights the good in another?

What about news orgs highlighting something as problem when it isn’t. Maybe animal content in food, but in actuality it’s within regulatory range and isn’t a threat to public health. Or what if they highlight the plight of a particular political prisoner but in general that country treats people well and doesn’t otherwise have political prisoners but the regime slighted the news org so they decide on a “smear” campaign.

Where do we draw the line? Especially with regards to political discourse, we ought to grant wide berth.

Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks

#150

Post by makomk »

zaroth wrote: post #139
PixyMisa wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a different video. The one Trump retweeted is undoctored footage of Pelosi stumbling over words, because she actually does that.

It’s amazing how hard it is to get someone to believe something counter to their baseline assumption. People “know” Trump spread the video, even though it’s simple irrefutable fact that he did not. The media is often responsible for amplifying and distorting an act to the point where the original act and actor are indistinguishable. Kind of exactly like what happened in the doctored video. This is perhaps an incredib…

It's worth thinking, too, about the role this New York Times opinion piece played in convincing people so strongly of something that isn't true that the untruth was upvoted whilst the comment pointing it out is greyed out. They make it sound like the perception she was "drunk or perhaps crazy" was entirely the result of the deliberately and maliciously doctored video. Clearly it wasn't. Anyone who didn't investigate things themselves is left with the false impression that everyone mocking this Pelosi appearance was using a fake doctored video to do so - including the President of the United States - even though the author of this never technically lied.
Post reply on HN