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

Facebook removed a fact-check on anti-abortion video after Ted Cruz complained

businessinsider.nl

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–148 of 148 posts

Re: Facebook removed a fact-check on anti-abortion video after Ted Cruz complained

#141

Post by sterileopinions »

scoobyyabbadoo wrote: post #138
sterileopinions wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>which I must deduce is you going through and downvoting all my posts? I haven't touched a single post of yours, and indeed it is impossible for me downvote _anyone_ with the current status of my account. Pretty poor theory for a pretty poor person.

OK, maybe you shared my account with someone who can downvote, it doesn't matter. If you have something to reply to my comments, you can reply to me directly with what you disagree with and why, I have always engaged productively with many people on HN whether their viewpoints are similar or different. From your prior comment I know you disagree with something I've said but you haven't stated why you think those thin…

Yeah, I shared it with this forum. When I linked to your comments.

Re: Facebook removed a fact-check on anti-abortion video after Ted Cruz complained

#142

Post by scoobyyabbadoo »

sterileopinions wrote: post #141
scoobyyabbadoo wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, maybe you shared my account with someone who can downvote, it doesn't matter. If you have something to reply to my comments, you can reply to me directly with what you disagree with and why, I have always engaged productively with many people on HN whether their viewpoints are similar or different. From your prior comment I know you disagree with something I've said but you haven't stated why you think those thin…

Yeah, I shared it with this forum. When I linked to your comments.

I clicked your links and don't see any replies from you to those comments.

Re: Facebook removed a fact-check on anti-abortion video after Ted Cruz complained

#143

Post by coryrc »

jjulius wrote: post #8
coryrc wrote: post #7

I'm so glad big tech screens videos for the correct political viewpoint. Nobody could have predicted events like this.

They screened videos to ensure the facts pertaining to a medical procedure were correct. The fact check itself had nothing to do with politics.

I missed this before, but the problem is _what_ they choose to fact check, not how; and this is evidence of how susceptible they are to political pressure (in a negative way, this time).

Re: Facebook removed a fact-check on anti-abortion video after Ted Cruz complained

#144

Post by rpmisms »

danShumway wrote: post #74

I'm seeing a couple of comments on here to the effect of, "what did you expect when you started asking companies to screen/moderate content?" This is not a good example of screening being impossible to do, or being too subjective to nail down. Facebook moderated the video on largely neutral terms; not asserting that abortion was right or wrong, just that the claims the video made were scientifically false. It should…

I'm pro-life, and I agree with the fact check. I don't like Facebook being partisan, which is exactly what this looks like.

Re: Facebook removed a fact-check on anti-abortion video after Ted Cruz complained

#145

Post by dang »

sterileopinions wrote: post #135
scoobyyabbadoo wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same here, just makes me think who has connections to get themselves declared fact checker. Can you imagine how awesome it must be to have major media outlets coo about how whatever you the fact checker says should not be questioned?

This comment is a dog whistle. Why are HN moderators allowing this account to post comments on this forum? Here is a previous comment on this account: >tBut the progressive revolution has entirely skipped over the struggles of non-Jewish whites merely because of their skin color. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20972062 and another one: >Let's just be honest here, the only people experiencing fall-out from the E…

You say that, yet it didn't concern you enough to let us know about it? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

The idea that if you see something unmoderated, it must mean that the moderators secretly agree with it, is a non sequitur. What's actually happening is that we only see a portion of what gets posted to HN, and we can't moderate what we don't see. That's why the site guidelines ask you to flag bad comments and, in egregious cases, to email hn@ycombinator.com. Fortunately, another user chose to follow the site guidelines and did so.

Please see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21003570 for more.

Re: Facebook removed a fact-check on anti-abortion video after Ted Cruz complained

#146

Post by sterileopinions »

dang wrote: post #145
sterileopinions wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment is a dog whistle. Why are HN moderators allowing this account to post comments on this forum? Here is a previous comment on this account: >tBut the progressive revolution has entirely skipped over the struggles of non-Jewish whites merely because of their skin color. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20972062 and another one: >Let's just be honest here, the only people experiencing fall-out from the E…

You say that, yet it didn't concern you enough to let us know about it? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The idea that if you see something unmoderated, it must mean that the moderators secretly agree with it, is a non sequitur. What's actually happening is that we only see a portion of what gets posted to HN, and we can't moderate what we don't see. That's why the site guidelines ask you to flag bad comments…

>The idea that if you see something unmoderated, it must mean that the moderators secretly agree with it, is a monster of a non sequitur.

Yes. That's what happens when you provide a self-publishing system. You agree to that contract whether you want to or not.

And it's not just this comment. It happens all the time.

>That's why the site guidelines ask you to flag bad comments

I literally cannot do that. Surely you know that.

>Fortunately, another user chose to follow the site guidelines and did so.

You don't think it's a problem that only one other user decided to _email_ you a problem. Doesn't that indicate a problem with the site culture?

I'm one person, a consumer of this site. Not a moderator. I called attention to it using the one capability given to me on this site. Saying "that's not good enough" is extremely asinine when I literally am not able to do anything else on the site.

Re: Facebook removed a fact-check on anti-abortion video after Ted Cruz complained

#147

Post by dang »

sterileopinions wrote: post #146
dang wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say that, yet it didn't concern you enough to let us know about it? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The idea that if you see something unmoderated, it must mean that the moderators secretly agree with it, is a non sequitur. What's actually happening is that we only see a portion of what gets posted to HN, and we can't moderate what we don't see. That's why the site guidelines ask you to flag bad comments…

>The idea that if you see something unmoderated, it must mean that the moderators secretly agree with it, is a monster of a non sequitur. Yes. That's what happens when you provide a self-publishing system. You agree to that contract whether you want to or not. And it's not just this comment. It happens all the time. >That's why the site guidelines ask you to flag bad comments I literally cannot do that. Surely you kn…

It's trivial to get enough karma to flag posts on HN. We keep the threshold low on purpose so that anyone who wants to use HN as intended can easily cross it. The reason you haven't is not because we're somehow excluding you. It's because your many accounts consistently break the site guidelines, causing your posts to get downvoted.

But you can always email us, as anyone can. The fact that you didn't shows that you're not truly concerned about keeping HN free of the abuse you're complaining about. Rather, you're using other people's abusive comments as an excuse to post abusive comments of your own, smearing the community—who don't support the dreck that shows up here, just like it shows up everywhere on the public internet—and trying to undermine it. When you imply that moderators somehow support the dreck, I don't believe you're doing so in good faith. Anyone who's been around HN as long as you have knows that's false. Rather, the name for what you're doing is poisoning the well. That is another form of trolling.

Would you please stop creating accounts to break HN's guidelines with? This site is for people who sincerely want to use it as intended, and the intended use is laid out clearly at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html: intellectual curiosity and kind, thoughtful discussion.

Re: Facebook removed a fact-check on anti-abortion video after Ted Cruz complained

#148

Post by sterileopinions »

dang wrote: post #147
sterileopinions wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The idea that if you see something unmoderated, it must mean that the moderators secretly agree with it, is a monster of a non sequitur. Yes. That's what happens when you provide a self-publishing system. You agree to that contract whether you want to or not. And it's not just this comment. It happens all the time. >That's why the site guidelines ask you to flag bad comments I literally cannot do that. Surely you kn…

It's trivial to get enough karma to flag posts on HN. We keep the threshold low on purpose so that anyone who wants to use HN as intended can easily cross it. The reason you haven't is not because we're somehow excluding you. It's because your many accounts consistently break the site guidelines, causing your posts to get downvoted. But you can always email us, as anyone can. The fact that you didn't shows that you'r…

>The reason you haven't is not because we're somehow excluding you.

I didn't say that.

>It's because your many accounts consistently break the site guidelines, causing your posts to get downvoted.

It's trivial as you say to get up-voted. But you do it not with substance, but with tone.

HN literally has a system to negate community downvotes that typically only gets used when a mainstream HN opinion gets downvoted. Don't you even _dare_ to pretend that its some kind of filtering mechanism that works. Because HN is the last place you'd want to use to laud some kind of meritocratic democratic system.

A person who basically has a fetish for the Holocaust is posting around on the site. No one flagged it, no one down-voted it, a few people called it out, and one person emailed the site moderators about it.

Haha.

>The fact that you didn't shows that you're not truly concerned about keeping HN free of the abuse you're complaining about.

Choosing to or to not use an external communication system doesn't imply anything. Please stop using motivational fallacies to protect inconsistent, flimsy decision making.

> When you imply that moderators somehow support the dreck, I don't believe you're doing so in good faith.

It's not an implication. It's how self-publishing systems work. The organization can even be held legally responsible in egregious cases for allowing certain content to get published. You might in your heart of hearts be earnest about this belief, but it's not realistic and it's fairly naive.

>the name for what you're doing is poisoning the well. That is another form of trolling.

Usage of fallacies is not trolling. Don't say what I'm doing is trolling. You're quite literally using the fallacy you just referenced against me while pretending that I'm the one doing it, despite none of comments ascribing any kind of personal characteristic or motivation to moderators' inaction.

There is no need to get so childishly personal and attempt to poorly invoke fallacies you immediately then use. That's kind of disheartening to see.

>This site is for people who sincerely want to use it as intended

Not that this is relevant, but there is a rather rich irony in where a site with the name Hacker in it expects its users to plainly use the site as "intended". Totally and completely ignoring the principle behind hacking: to make systems act differently than intended, whatever the motivation.

Post reply on HN