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

Facebook’s Political Unit Enables Propaganda

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 271 posts

Re: Facebook’s Political Unit Enables Propaganda

#191

Post by JSONwebtoken »

jancsika wrote: post #81
H99189 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've read the "journalists lean left, owners lean right" mantra many, many of times over the last 10 years on various boards, yet the overwhelming majority of network news and shows, cable news and entertainment shows dump on Republicans/Conservatism and fawn over Democrats/Liberalism. IMO, it's a very misleading idea meant to deceive people into thinking their sources of news or entertainment are somehow more honest…

You're conflating two very different concepts. The mantra is not "journalists are Democrats, owners are Republicans." Cable news and entertainment fawned over Hilary, not Bernie.

Hillary is a democrat, Bernie Sanders is an extremist. So the mantra stands.

Re: Facebook’s Political Unit Enables Propaganda

#192

Post by vadimberman »

I remember back in late 1990s to early 2000s there was a fad for scaremongering articles about how computers and the Internet are the root of all evil.

Looks like it's the turn of social networks now.

> In India, the company helped develop the online presence of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who now has more Facebook followers than any other world leader.

...Seriously? How about another article on SEO companies training political campaign managers how to gain better ranking in Google?

Re: Facebook’s Political Unit Enables Propaganda

#193

Post by JSONwebtoken »

qubex wrote: post #72
hkon wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why did this anger you so? Just a cartoon I'm thinking. edit: this is getting ridiculous at this point. downvotes for starting a conversation. come on.

Cartoon or not, or is a depiction of sexual objectification, harassment, profaning somebody’s personal space in a public context, and a denigration of womanhood. What is there to like about it?

Aren't the pictures of Donald Trumps "thicc ass" attempting to climb a hill while playing golf considered sexual objectification, harassment, profaning somebody’s personal space in a public context, and a denigration of late-manhood?

One's a cartoon depiction, another is a real photograph taken without consent. Why would they take down the former but leave the latter to proliferate?

Re: Facebook’s Political Unit Enables Propaganda

#194

Post by TheRealDunkirk »

Steeeve wrote: post #90
fortythirteen wrote: post #2

Imagine if ABC/CBS/NBC actively went to political parties and sold them on buying their way into the scripts of the top prime-time sitcoms to shape the opinion of viewers. That's essentially what Facebook is doing out in the open.

Imagine... If somebody like Rush Limbaugh had a nationwide radio show where day by day he created content based on RNC talking points. Or a network like Fox or MSNBC went all in on party loyalty and based all their content on party talking points. Or a media conglomerate like Sinclair or Clear Channel pushed out political messaging to their affiliates in small markets that had to be aired during prime viewership. oh…

> If somebody like Rush Limbaugh had a nationwide radio show where day by day he created content based on RNC talking points.

I happened to catch his comments about the FCC's pending net neutrality reversal, and he was wholly in support of it. There's no way you can argue for that unless you've been captured by the minority of interests/majority of money that wanted it to happen.

Re: Facebook’s Political Unit Enables Propaganda

#195

Post by JSONwebtoken »

fortythirteen wrote: post #2

Imagine if ABC/CBS/NBC actively went to political parties and sold them on buying their way into the scripts of the top prime-time sitcoms to shape the opinion of viewers. That's essentially what Facebook is doing out in the open.

How do you think Alec Baldwin got a job?

Re: Facebook’s Political Unit Enables Propaganda

#196

Post by hyperdunc »

qubex wrote: post #72
hkon wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why did this anger you so? Just a cartoon I'm thinking. edit: this is getting ridiculous at this point. downvotes for starting a conversation. come on.

Cartoon or not, or is a depiction of sexual objectification, harassment, profaning somebody’s personal space in a public context, and a denigration of womanhood. What is there to like about it?

You don't have to like it. You also don't get to censor it because you don't like it.

Re: Facebook’s Political Unit Enables Propaganda

#197

Post by ssalazar »

apearson wrote: post #35
meri_dian wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or maybe there's nothing flukey about it. Trump talked about things people cared about in a straightforward, albeit bombastic, way. You may disagree with his approach, but others appreciated he was at least talking about things they cared about. Sure Hillary talked about those issues too, but she wasn't able to set a clear vision or ground her campaign in clearly defined and solid themes. We can only learn from failu…

I agree, it was a close election and yes the system has it's flaws but there was nothing that went majorly wrong with this election.

There is literally a special investigation right now that is attempting to determine how and where things went wrong.

Re: Facebook’s Political Unit Enables Propaganda

#198

Post by hyperdunc »

bourgoin wrote: post #84
qubex wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cartoon or not, or is a depiction of sexual objectification, harassment, profaning somebody’s personal space in a public context, and a denigration of womanhood. What is there to like about it?

One thing to like about it is that the poster had the ability to exercise speech without being censored because somebody found their speech distasteful. Of course, opinions on the value of censorship vary. One could argue that Facebook has a special responsibility to society due to their ubiquity, that their community standards are not stringent enough for that reason, and that they should be censoring more speech th…

> Facebook has the right to moderate content on their platform however they choose.

They have the legal right. But any ubiquitous service should lose that right and be subject to the First Amendment.

Re: Facebook’s Political Unit Enables Propaganda

#199

Post by philwelch »

objectivetruth wrote: post #182
philwelch wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Avatar comes to mind, as do all of those depressing post-Vietnam movies.

So the main point of Avatar in your opinion -- the reason it was explicitly made -- is that the military sucks? Not colonization or overcoming physical adversity or even just a fun sci-fi romp? It was just $100 million of "lol the army sucks?" And you realize that a movie about the horrors of the Vietnam War isn't necessarily anti-military, right? America lost tens of thousands of young men and hundreds of thousands…

You’re really spoiling for a fight today, aren’t you?

Re: Facebook’s Political Unit Enables Propaganda

#200

Post by bigger_cheese »

Helmet wrote: post #141
hackbinary wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then how do you explain the successive insanely excessive right wing governments in the US, Canada, Britain, and Australia over the last 30-40 years? Have you even read Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky? What do you even mean by conservative? Liberal? You do realise that liberal and liberalism means keeping the government out of people's lives. The USA is a liberal nation by definition, for example 'The separatio…

>Then how do you explain the successive insanely excessive right wing governments I'm not familiar with Australian politics, but as for the others, what do you mean? We have had both liberal and conservative governments the last 30-40 years. This, again, has little to do with the mainstream culture, which was my original point. As for explaining to you why neoliberalism has triumphed, well I recommend that you start…

>I'm not familiar with Australian politics

I don't think you can really compare Australian Politics with US Politics the situation here is probably more similar to the UK than the US. Our parlimentry system is influenced by the UK 'Westminster system' we do not have a directly elected head of state. If you want to be technical the Govenor General appointed by the Queen is our Head of state. Sitting Prime ministers can be replaced by another member of their own party has happened several times in last 10 years.

To put my biases up front I am a left leaning voter who dislikes both major parties - voted for Greens most recently. Anyway here is my attempt to summarize it:

Our two major parties are the Labor party and the Liberal party.

"Liberal" in Australia has a different meaning to how the word is used in US. Calling someone a liberal or accusing them of holding liberal views has a very different meaning then in US. Here it refers to ecconomic Liberalism (support for private ownership and free trade). The Liberal party typically has a conservative stance on social issues.

Labor party has traditionally drawn it's support from Union movement it's policies mostly align with social democracy. In recent years labor has drifted more right-ward similar to Tony Blair led "New Labour" in UK. Labor party's stance on social issues has boggled my mind in recent years they tend to ping-pong all over the place. In general they take a more populist approach rather than standing on principles (i.e Kevin Rudd walking away from climate change action after declaring it the moral challenge of a generation during his election campaign) which in my opinion plays a big roll in growth of Greens (winning seats in state/federal parliament etc) as the 'inner city left' has somewhat abandoned Labor.

To call either party "insanely excessive" is inaccurate and I say that as someone who disagrees with both parties.

Post reply on HN